Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
jira-xray-cloud-mcp

jira-xray-cloud-mcp

by netcare-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Xray Get Attachment

xray_get_attachment
Read-onlyIdempotent

Download an Xray Cloud attachment or evidence file by ID. Text files return as text; others as base64.

Instructions

Download an attachment or evidence file; text files come back as text, others as base64.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "attachment_id": "<attachment_id>"
    },
    "name": "xray_get_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
attachment_idYesAttachment or evidence id.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: return encoding varies by content type (text files as text, others as base64), which affects how the agent must handle the response.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, followed immediately by the return-format caveat. No filler and nothing important is buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a rich annotation set, a fully documented single parameter, and an output schema present, the description only needs to add the caller-facing behavior it does (text vs base64 payload). Minor omissions such as error behavior or size limits remain, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Attachment or evidence id.'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for attachment_id, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (download) and resource (attachment or evidence file), and the name pairs it against its sibling xray_upload_attachment. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: it is a fetch-by-id tool, so the agent infers it is used to retrieve a known attachment id. There is no statement of when to prefer this over, say, xray_get_test_run or xray_get_step_library, nor any prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools