Download a Redmine attachment to your local file system by providing the attachment ID and filename. Set an optional output directory to control where the file is saved.
Download attachment file from Redmine to local file system
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pathParams | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the 'download' action. The description adds little beyond the annotation, only specifying the source and destination. It doesn't disclose potential side effects like file overwriting or permission requirements, but given the read-only nature, this is acceptable. No contradiction.
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?
A single sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource, and every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple download operation with a well-documented schema and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It doesn't cover usage context like when to prefer this over base64 variants, but that is a matter of usage guidelines rather than completeness. The description adequately covers what the tool does.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (attachmentId, filename, outputDir), so schema coverage is effectively 100% despite the context signal indicating 0%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action (download), the resource (attachment file from Redmine), and the destination (local file system). It distinguishes from siblings like downloadAttachmentAsBase64Content and downloadThumbnailToLocalFile by specifying 'to local file system' and 'attachment file'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as downloadAttachmentAsBase64Content or downloadThumbnailToLocalFile. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., file size limits, authentication).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.