Downloads a Jira attachment by ID to a temporary local path for quick access, with the cache cleaned up on server shutdown.
Download one attachment by id into a process-scoped temporary cache and return its local_path. The cache is removed when the server shuts down.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| attachment_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "download_attachmentDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent traits. The description adds valuable behavior beyond those by explaining the process-scoped temporary cache and its lifecycle (removed at server shutdown). No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and side-effect behavior are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.
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 simple single-parameter read operation, the description provides the key outcome (local_path), the temporary-cache behavior, and its lifecycle. An agent can call the tool correctly without needing to know return structure, since the return value is explicitly stated.
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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining attachment_id. However, it only restates 'by id' and does not explain what an attachment_id is, how to obtain it, or whether it maps to get_attachments output. This adds almost no meaning beyond the parameter name.
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 states a specific verb ('Download'), a specific resource ('one attachment by id'), and a clear result ('return its local_path'). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling get_attachments, which presumably lists attachments rather than fetching a single one's content.
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 description makes it evident this tool is for fetching a single attachment's local file path, while siblings like get_attachments are more likely for listing or metadata. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.