redmine-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

getAttachment

getAttachment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Download a known Redmine issue attachment to a local snapshot and extract text from supported documents or archives; images and unsupported binaries return metadata and a local path.

Instructions

Retrieve and inspect one known issue attachment by downloading it to the server's local snapshot and extracting text from supported documents or archives. Use getIssue to discover attachment IDs; images and unsupported binaries return metadata and a local path without extracted text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`issueId`	Yes
`maxChars`	No	Total character budget for extracted text across all parts
`partLimit`	No	Per-part character cap for extracted text
`attachmentId`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Free-text note explaining the result, typically present when text extraction was skipped.
`parts`	No	Extracted parser output. Text parts carry content; images and unsupported binaries carry localPath/fileUri and an explanatory note.
`fileUri`	No	RFC 3986 `file://` URI pointing at the downloaded file.
`localPath`	No	Absolute filesystem path of the downloaded file.
`localSize`	Yes	Size of the downloaded file on disk, in bytes (-1 if the size could not be determined).
`truncated`	Yes	True when at least one part's text was cut to fit response size limits.
`attachment`	No
`textExtracted`	Yes	True when at least one part contains successfully extracted text.
`extractionType`	No	Detected document kind used for extraction (`image`, `pdf`, `docx`, `xlsx`, `pptx`, `text`, `zip`, ...).
`compressionNotes`	No	Human-readable notes describing how this response was compressed to fit the response size budget. Null/empty when no compression was applied.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: downloading to the server's local snapshot, extracting text from supported documents/archives, and returning metadata/local path for images or unsupported binaries. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the fallback behavior is stated efficiently. Every clause adds information.

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 rich annotations, an output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the key behavioral nuances: local snapshot download, text extraction, the getIssue prerequisite, and the unsupported-file fallback. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The schema describes maxChars and partLimit but not issueId or attachmentId. The description adds meaningful context for attachmentId ('Use getIssue to discover attachment IDs'), but it doesn't clarify the two required integer parameters or explicitly tie maxChars/partLimit to the extraction behavior. With 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Retrieve and inspect one known issue attachment') and clearly distinguishes itself from getIssue, which is for discovering attachment IDs. The scope is unambiguous: one known attachment, with text extraction for supported types and metadata/path fallback for unsupported ones.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use getIssue to discover attachment IDs, providing a clear prerequisite and routing hint. It doesn't enumerate all alternatives or say 'when not to use', but the context is clear enough for selection.

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