Retrieve a specific attachment from Memos by providing its unique ID. Access the stored file directly with just the attachment ID.
Get a specific attachment by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| attachment_id | Yes | The attachment ID (e.g., "123" or "attachments/123") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden, but it only states that a specific attachment is retrieved. It does not disclose behavior such as return format, error handling, authorization needs, or whether this is strictly read-only beyond the verb 'get'.
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 front-loaded sentence conveys the essential operation with no filler. Every word is informative.
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 tool is simple and the schema covers the parameter, but there is no output schema and the description does not clarify what is returned (binary content, metadata, or both). For an agent invoking the tool, this is a meaningful gap.
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 fully describes the single parameter including example formats ('123' or 'attachments/123'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds little beyond restating that lookup is by ID, which matches the baseline of 3.
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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('attachment'), and the qualifier 'specific ... by ID' distinguishes this from sibling list_attachments. An agent can immediately tell that this tool fetches one attachment rather than enumerating them.
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 about when to choose get_attachment over get_memo or list_attachments, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The only usage signal is the implicit need for an attachment ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.