List all attachments for a specific memo by providing its memo ID. Retrieve attachment details with optional pagination controls for page size and token.
List all attachments for a specific memo
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memoId | Yes | The memo ID (e.g., "123" or "memos/123") | |
| pageSize | No | Maximum number of attachments to return (default: 50, max: 1000) | |
| pageToken | 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?
With no annotations, the description itself indicates a read-only list operation, which is adequate. However, it does not disclose that results are paginated despite pageSize/pageToken parameters, and 'all' is potentially misleading given the default/page limits. The behavior is not contradicted, but the description could do more.
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 concise sentence with no filler. The resource and scope are front-loaded, and every word contributes to identifying what the tool does.
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 three-parameter list tool, the schema covers parameters, but the description omits the output shape and contradicts the pagination behavior by saying 'all'. Without an output schema or annotations, an agent gets basic callability but not full expected behavior.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; memoId, pageSize, and pageToken are already documented. It does not explain how they interact with the listing behavior.
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?
States a clear action and scope: 'List all attachments' for a targeted 'specific memo'. The phrase 'for a specific memo' differentiates it from the sibling list_attachments and get_attachment, so an agent can identify the intended resource.
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 guidance on when to choose this tool over list_attachments, get_attachment, or set_memo_attachments. There are no explicit when-to-use or exclusions; usage is only implied by the tool name and the memoId parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.