Downloads a ticket's attachments to a local directory, creating it if needed; set archivo_id for one file or omit it to get all.
Descarga los adjuntos de un ticket a una carpeta local. Con archivo_id descarga solo uno; si no, todos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Código del ticket, por ejemplo PROJ-123. | |
| destino | Yes | Directorio donde se guardan los archivos. Se crea si no existe. | |
| archivo_id | No | Si se indica, descarga solo ese adjunto. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds that files land in a local directory, but says nothing about overwriting existing files, partial failures, or what happens when a ticket has no attachments — notable gaps for a tool with filesystem side effects.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action first and the mode-switching rule second. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.
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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the optional-parameter behavior. The main omission is the return value (file paths, count, failure reporting), which for a side-effecting download tool would help an agent verify success — but this is a modest gap given the schema richness.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the archivo_id semantics and destination auto-creation. The description's restatement of archivo_id adds no information beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource: downloading a ticket's attachments to a local folder, with a clear distinction between single-file and all-files modes. It is distinguishable from siblings like listar_adjuntos by the verb 'descarga', though it never explicitly contrasts with them.
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 clause 'Con archivo_id descarga solo uno; si no, todos' tells the agent how to pick between the two modes, which is genuine guidance. However there is no mention of when to prefer this over listar_adjuntos, nor any prerequisite (ticket access, destination writability) stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.