Retrieve an attachment's details in JSON or XML by its ID to view file metadata from Redmine, solving the need to access attachment information directly through the API.
Show attachment
| 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 already tells the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral detail—it does not explain what the attachment display entails, whether it returns content or metadata, or any side effects. It fails to leverage the annotation by adding useful context.
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 extremely short (two words), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no structure or front-loading of key information; it fails to earn its brevity by being unhelpfully minimal.
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 abundance of attachment-related sibling tools and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. The agent cannot determine what the tool returns, how it differs from download operations, or when to invoke it, making it inadequate for correct tool selection.
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?
With 0% schema coverage and a description that only says 'Show attachment,' the agent gets no explanation of the pathParams (format and attachmentId). The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to guess what format and attachmentId mean.
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 'Show attachment' states a verb and resource but is vague—it doesn't clarify whether it returns metadata, binary content, or a preview. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like downloadAttachmentAsBase64Content or getAttachment-related operations, leaving ambiguity about what 'show' means.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the many attachment-related siblings (e.g., downloadAttachmentToLocalFile, downloadAttachmentAsBase64Content). There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or context for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.