Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@ola/buzz-mcp

@ola/buzz-mcp

Official
by ola-krutrim
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

buzz_attachment_read

Read-onlyIdempotent

Download an attachment from a readable message by channel and event ID; returns extracted text for documents or a saved file path. Use index to select among multiple attachments.

Instructions

Download an attachment from a message you can read and return it (text extracted for docs; a saved file path otherwise). Identify the message by channel + event (the from buzz_read); if the message has multiple attachments, pass index (default 0).

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": {
      "channel": "<channel>",
      "event": "<event>"
    },
    "name": "buzz_attachment_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventYesthe target message's <id> (from buzz_read)
indexNowhich attachment on the message (default 0)
channelYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.2.36
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / channel / maxLength
      Added value: +256
    • addedInput schema / properties / event / maxLength
      Added value: +128
    • addedInput schema / properties / index / maximum
      Added value: +63
    • addedInput schema / properties / index / minimum
      Added value: +0
  2. First observedv0.2.6

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to re-litigate safety. It does add genuine behavioral value: the access requirement ('a message you can read') and, crucially, what is returned — extracted text for documents versus a saved file path otherwise — which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the outcome/return behavior is front-loaded and the identification guidance follows. The parenthetical about return types is compact but slightly overloaded, packing two distinct behaviors into one clause.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately, and it covers the read-permission prerequisite and multi-attachment indexing. Only the exact form of `channel` is left ambiguous for an otherwise simple three-parameter tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description fills the most important gap by explaining that `event` is a message id obtained from buzz_read and how `channel` + `event` together form the locator, plus the meaning and default of `index`. It leaves `channel`'s expected format (name vs id) undefined in both places, which is the remaining hole.

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 and resource ('Download an attachment from a message') plus the return shape (extracted text for docs, saved file path otherwise), which is far more informative than the bare name. It never names a sibling (e.g. buzz_files, buzz_save) or explains how it differs from them, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 actionable context: identify the message via `channel` + `event` where `event` is 'the <id> from buzz_read', and pass `index` when a message has multiple attachments. The prerequisite ('a message you can read') is a useful gating condition, but there is no explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing.

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