Fetch a Redmine attachment thumbnail and save it to your local file system. Provide an attachment ID and optional output directory to store the image.
Download thumbnail from Redmine to local file system
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pathParams | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the key behavior of writing to the local file system, which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose file naming, overwrite behavior, or error conditions. The readOnlyHint aligns with the download action, so no contradiction.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, but it sacrifices essential content for brevity. The structure is acceptable, though it omits important context.
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 tool with a required attachmentId and an optional output directory, the description leaves critical gaps: what happens if outputDir is omitted, how the file is named, and any potential side effects. With no output schema, these details are entirely absent.
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 0%, and the description provides no explanation for attachmentId or outputDir. The agent is left to infer parameter meanings solely from the schema, which is minimal and does not convey defaults or constraints beyond types.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Download' and the specific resource 'thumbnail from Redmine to local file system'. It distinguishes the destination from the base64 variant, but does not explicitly name sibling tools or edge cases.
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 is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives like downloadThumbnailAsBase64Content or downloadAttachmentToLocalFile. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or when the optional outputDir should be set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.