Retrieve base64-encoded bytes of a Skoleplattform Oslo message attachment (up to 10 MB) by attachment ID for local use.
Get base64 bytes of a message attachment (maximum 10 MB).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| attachment_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add two genuinely useful facts: the return encoding (base64) and the 10 MB size cap. However, it is silent on what happens when an attachment exceeds the cap, permission/auth requirements, and failure modes.
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 tight sentence with the return format and size limit front-loaded. No wasted words, though it is arguably under-specified rather than truly concise.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what comes back and its size bound, but omits how to obtain the ID and the behavior on limit violations or errors.
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 0% and the single attachment_id parameter has an unusual composite pattern (^\d+:\d+$) that is nowhere explained. The description says nothing about the parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('message attachment'), and the parenthetical clarifies that raw base64 bytes are returned rather than metadata. It is distinguishable from get_message by the 'attachment' resource, though it never explicitly contrasts the two siblings.
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 on when to use this versus get_message, and no hint that the attachment_id must first be discovered via get_message. The agent is left to infer the retrieval workflow entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.