List all attachments associated with a work package using its internal ID (e.g., 952) or display ID (e.g., PROJ-51), providing file details and download access.
List attachments on a work package.
work_package_id: internal id (e.g., 952) or display_id (e.g., "PROJ-51"), not UI display number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| work_package_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.3.7Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.3.3v0.3.0v0.2.3Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "$defs": {
- "AttachmentSummary": {
- "properties": {
- "author": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Author"
- },
- "container_id": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Container Id"
- },
- "container_type": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Container Type"
- },
- "content_type": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Content Type"
- },
- "created_at": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Created At"
- },
- "description": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Description"
- },
- "download_url": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Download Url"
- },
- "file_name": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "File Name"
- },
- "file_size": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "File Size"
- },
- "id": {
- "title": "Id",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "status": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Status"
- },
- "title": {
- "title": "Title",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "url": {
- "title": "Url",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "id",
- "title",
- "file_name",
- "file_size",
- "description",
- "content_type",
- "status",
- "author",
- "container_type",
- "container_id",
- "created_at",
- "download_url",
- "url"
- ],
- "title": "AttachmentSummary",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "properties": {
- "count": {
- "title": "Count",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "results": {
- "items": {
- "$ref": "#/$defs/AttachmentSummary"
- },
- "title": "Results",
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "count",
- "results"
- ],
- "title": "AttachmentListResult",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the provided id clarification adds some context, but there is no mention of what the response contains, whether pagination applies, or any permissions. For a simple list operation, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.
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 concise and front-loaded with the key purpose. The id note is placed as a separate paragraph, which is helpful but not redundant. It earns a high score for efficiency, though the id explanation could have been integrated more tightly with the main sentence.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the purpose and the only parameter thoroughly. However, because there is no output schema or annotation, additional details about the return shape or behavior would make it more complete.
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 schema only states that work_package_id accepts an integer or string, but the description adds valuable meaning by explaining that it can be an internal id (952) or display_id ('PROJ-51') and explicitly warns 'not UI display number.' This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and ensures correct invocation.
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 tool's purpose: 'List attachments on a work package.' The verb 'list' and the resource 'attachments on a work package' are specific. It does not explicitly distinguish it from the similar sibling tool 'list_work_package_file_links', but the core purpose is 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 usage guidance is provided: there is no explanation of when to choose this over list_work_package_file_links or get_attachment, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only extra note clarifies the id format, which is parameter semantics rather than tool-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jtauschl/openproject-ce-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server