List a Jira issue's attachment metadata (id, filename, size, author, created) without downloading files. Use it to identify attachments before fetching content.
List an issue's attachment metadata (id, filename, mime_type, size, author, created) without downloading content. Use download_attachment to fetch a file's bytes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "get_attachmentsDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds the crucial behavior of not downloading content and lists the metadata fields returned, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations and adds useful behavioral context, though it stops short of detailing output structure or edge cases.
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 with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, key fields are listed compactly, and the alternative tool is stated in one short clause. Every word 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 metadata-list tool with one required parameter, the description covers the purpose, returned fields, and the sibling to use for downloads. It omits details like pagination, sorting, or behavior for invalid issue keys, but these are reasonable to leave implied given the annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and the straightforward nature of the operation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
The input schema has only one parameter, issue_key, with zero description coverage. The description implies its meaning by referencing 'an issue' but does not explicitly state the expected format (e.g., project key like 'PROJ-123' vs. numeric ID). Since the burden is higher with 0% coverage, the description partially compensates but lacks explicit parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('attachment metadata') and explicitly enumerates the returned fields (id, filename, mime_type, size, author, created). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool download_attachment by stating it does not download content, making the tool's scope unambiguous.
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 states exactly when to use this tool (to list attachment metadata without downloading) and explicitly names the alternative for fetching bytes (download_attachment). This gives the agent clear routing criteria and leaves no ambiguity about selecting the right tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.