Fetch a Zendesk ticket attachment using its content_url and return the file as base64-encoded data. Use attachment URLs from ticket comments to retrieve files.
Fetch a Zendesk ticket attachment by its content_url and return the file as base64-encoded data. Use the attachment URLs returned by get_ticket_comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content_url | Yes | The content_url of the attachment from get_ticket_comments |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the return format (base64-encoded data), which is important context. However, it omits any discussion of authentication, rate limits, or behavior on missing/large 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?
Two tight sentences that front-load the operation and return format, followed by the routing hint. No wasted words.
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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, input source, and output format adequately. It lacks only minor behavioral details like error handling, which are less critical without annotations and no output schema.
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 100%, so the single content_url parameter is already fully documented in the schema with its origin. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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?
States a specific verb+resource (fetch a Zendesk ticket attachment) plus the retrieval mechanism (by content_url), and explicitly ties the URL source to the sibling get_ticket_comments, clearly differentiating it from other ticket tools.
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?
Explicitly names the sibling (get_ticket_comments) as the source of the content_url, telling the agent both when to use this tool and where its input comes from. The workflow dependency is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.