Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
testit-mcp-server

testit-mcp-server

by iampopovich
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_attachment

Read-only

Retrieves a TestIT attachment by UUID and returns its content base64-encoded for download or further processing.

Instructions

Download an attachment; content is returned base64-encoded.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesAttachment UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's added value is the disclosure that the payload is base64-encoded, which an agent must know to handle the result. It says nothing about size limits, truncation, or errors on missing attachments, so it is useful but not rich.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action, and the encoding note is the only extra clause — both parts earn their place. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

With one required parameter fully documented, no output schema, and annotations covering the read-only profile, the description supplies the one piece an agent cannot get elsewhere: the return encoding. For a simple content getter this is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented as an attachment UUID, so the schema does the work. The description adds no additional meaning about the ID's scope (e.g., whether it must come from the current project or an upload).

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Download an attachment") and adds that content comes back base64-encoded, so an agent knows this is the content-retrieval tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named get_attachment_metadata sibling, leaving the distinction to be inferred from the name.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_attachment_metadata or the test-result attachment variants, and no prerequisites or constraints are given. The only implied guidance is that you need an attachment ID, which the schema already enforces.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools