Find and organize attachments by applying filters, sorting, and pagination to retrieve the exact files you need.
List all attachments with pagination, filtering, and sorting
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | CEL expression for filtering | |
| order_by | No | Sort order (e.g., "create_time desc", "filename asc") | |
| page_size | No | Maximum number of attachments to return (default: 50, max: 1000) | |
| page_token | No | Page token for pagination |
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 alone must disclose behavior. It does state that the call supports pagination, filtering, and sorting, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not describe the response shape, whether a page token is returned for continuation, or any read-only guarantees, leaving some behavior to inference.
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, tightly written sentence with every word earning its place. It front-loads the core purpose and the supported capabilities, with no redundant or filler content.
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 list operation with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, the absence of an output schema and any explicit differentiation from 'list_memo_attachments' leaves some contextual gaps about the exact scope and returned data.
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 100% parameter documentation, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of pagination, filtering, and sorting maps to the schema parameters but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already states.
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 ('List') and the resource ('all attachments') with three concrete capabilities: pagination, filtering, and sorting. The phrase 'all attachments' also helps distinguish it from the sibling 'list_memo_attachments', which is presumably scoped to a specific memo.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus its siblings. In particular, it does not tell the agent when to use 'list_memo_attachments' instead, which is a meaningful ambiguity given the sibling list. Any differentiation is only implied by the word 'all'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.