Retrieve a specific attachment from a ticket by providing the ticket ID and attachment ID. Optionally include base64 encoded file data.
Get a specific ticket attachment by ticket ID and attachment ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticketId | Yes | The ticket ID | |
| attachmentId | Yes | The attachment ID to retrieve | |
| includeData | No | Whether to include base64 encoded file data (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., metadata only, base64 data only if includeData is true), any authentication requirements, or side effects. For a read operation, it lacks essential context about the output structure and behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence of 11 words, immediately conveying the core action. Every word earns its place, and there is no superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain the nature of the returned data (e.g., attachment metadata, optional file data), which could lead to agent confusion. The lack of an output schema increases the need for such context, which is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. It simply restates the purpose of the IDs, but does not clarify the purpose of 'includeData' or how the parameters influence the result.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'specific ticket attachment' with its identifiers (ticket ID and attachment ID). It distinctly separates from sibling tools like 'autotask_search_ticket_attachments' (which would retrieve multiple attachments) and 'autotask_create_ticket_attachment'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you need a specific attachment by ID, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'autotask_search_ticket_attachments'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.