Skip to main content
Glama
haxos-anon

Autotask MCP Server

autotask_create_ticket_attachment

Upload a file attachment to an Autotask ticket by providing the ticket ID, filename, and base64-encoded file content. Validates the 3 MB size limit before sending.

Instructions

Upload a file attachment to an existing ticket. The file content must be passed as a base64-encoded string in the data field (MCP is JSON-RPC, so binary bytes must be base64-encoded). Autotask enforces a 3 MB hard limit on ticket attachments; this tool validates the decoded size before calling the API and returns a clear error if the limit is exceeded. Example: { ticketId: 12345, title: "screenshot.png", data: "iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAA..." }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ticketIdYesThe ticket ID to attach the file to
titleYesDisplay title for the attachment (typically the filename, e.g. "screenshot.png")
dataYesBase64-encoded file content. Maximum decoded size: 3 MB (Autotask ticket attachment limit). Example: read a file and pass its base64 representation here.
fullPathNoOriginal filename including any path. Defaults to `title` if not provided.
contentTypeNoMIME type of the file (e.g. "image/png", "application/pdf"). Optional.
publishNoVisibility: 1 = All Autotask Users (default), 2 = Internal Users Only
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that data must be base64-encoded due to JSON-RPC, mentions the 3 MB Autotask hard limit, and states that the tool validates size before calling the API and returns clear errors. This is excellent behavioral transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences long, each adding distinct value: purpose, encoding rationale with size limit, and example. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description does not cover return values, but it does explain validation behavior. The tool is simple (upload attachment) and the description covers the key points: what, how (encoding), constraints (size), and gives an example. It is complete for its complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description still adds value by clarifying the base64 encoding requirement for the `data` parameter and referencing the 3 MB limit. It also includes a practical example that maps parameter names to values, demonstrating how to call the tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a specific verb+resource pair: 'Upload a file attachment to an existing ticket.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, most of which are creates/deletes/updates for other entities or gets/searches. The tool name includes 'create_ticket_attachment,' and the description reinforces that exact action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: to attach files to tickets. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., there is no other attachment creation tool among siblings), but it gives strong usage context including the encoding requirement and size limit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/haxos-anon/autotask-mcp1'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server