Upload a local file to Redmine as an attachment and obtain the upload token needed for linking it to issues, projects, or other records in subsequent API calls.
Upload attachment file from local file system to Redmine and get upload token
| 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?
Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation, and the description matches by saying 'upload'. However, the description adds no additional behavioral details such as whether the upload is permanent, what happens to the local file, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It only states the action and result, leaving the agent without knowledge of side effects or constraints.
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 sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary action and key differentiator (local file system) and includes the outcome. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward upload tool, with no filler or unnecessary detail.
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?
The description omits crucial context for correct usage. It does not explain that the returned upload token is meant for subsequent operations (e.g., attaching to issues), nor does it mention any prerequisites or dependencies. With no output schema and no usage guidelines, an agent is left without essential information about how to apply the token or when this tool is appropriate, making it incomplete for complex workflows.
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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the tool description does not elaborate on any parameters. The schema itself provides descriptions for filePath and filename ('Path to the file to upload' and 'Optional filename to use in Redmine (defaults to basename of filePath)'), which are helpful, but the tool description adds no extra meaning. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the description's contribution to parameter understanding negligible.
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: 'Upload attachment file from local file system to Redmine and get upload token'. It specifies the source (local file system) and the outcome (upload token), distinguishing it from sibling tools like uploadAttachmentFromBase64Content which uses base64 content instead of a local file. The verb 'upload' and resource 'attachment' are explicit, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 base64 alternative or other attachment-related tools. The description gives no context on typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and sibling tools, which is insufficient for effective selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.