Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nubiia-dev

MCP Holded

by nubiia-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_contact_attachment

Retrieve a specific contact attachment by filename from Holded. Use a filename returned by the contact attachment list to fetch the attachment for a known contact.

Instructions

Get a specific attachment from a contact by filename (Holded API v2). BREAKING CHANGE from v1: the path parameter changed from attachmentId (numeric/UUID) to filename (string). Obtain filenames from list_contact_attachments first.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYesAttachment filename as returned by list_contact_attachments
contactIdYesContact ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.0.3
    • removedInput schema / properties / attachmentId
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Attachment ID",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / filename
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Attachment filename as returned by list_contact_attachments",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "contactId",
-  "attachmentId"
-]New value: +[
+  "contactId",
+  "filename"
+]
  2. First observedv1.6.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It discloses the v1-to-v2 signature change, but says nothing about what the call returns (file bytes vs. metadata), whether the attachment is downloaded or merely referenced, or what happens on an unknown filename — significant gaps for a fetch tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the alternative tool. The breaking-change note is marginally tangential for an agent with no v1 context, but it is compact and does not bloat the definition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Both required parameters are documented and the prerequisite tool is named, which is enough to invoke it. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the return value and error semantics unstated — the main remaining deficiency for a simple two-parameter fetch.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including that filename comes from list_contact_attachments. The description's note that filename is the path parameter and the historical change from attachmentId adds minor context but largely repeats the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource (get a specific attachment from a contact) narrowed by an explicit lookup key (filename), and names the sibling list_contact_attachments that produces that key. This lets an agent distinguish it from the listing tool without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete ordering requirement: 'Obtain filenames from list_contact_attachments first,' which routes the agent to the sibling tool. It doesn't state failure behavior or when this tool should not be used (e.g., missing contact), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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