Save attachments from a Huddo message to a local directory and get the file paths.
Save the attachments of a message to a local directory and return the file paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as | No | Identity slug to act as (default: the active identity) | |
| room | No | spaceId or index from huddo_list (default: the default room; using it makes it the default) | |
| msgid | Yes | ||
| out_dir | No | Directory (default: current directory) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: files are written to a local directory and file paths are returned, making the filesystem side effect explicit. However, it omits overwrite behavior, permission/identity requirements, and what happens when the message has no attachments.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (action, target, destination, return) 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?
The one thing an agent most needs from a missing output schema, the return value (file paths), is stated. But for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, the definition is thin on edge cases (no attachments, write failures) and identity/room scoping behavior.
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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters (as, room, out_dir). The description corroborates 'local directory' (out_dir) and 'a message' (msgid) but adds no format, syntax, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?
The description states a concrete verb ('Save') and resource ('attachments of a message'), plus the output ('file paths'), so an agent immediately knows this is a download/extraction tool. No sibling is a downloader, so there is no competing tool to differentiate from, but the definition does not explicitly anchor the 'message' concept to the huddo_read/msgid workflow.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that a msgid typically comes from huddo_read), and no mention of alternatives or conditions such as requiring message membership. The agent must infer all of this from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.