Paperboy

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_attachments

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect files embedded in a PDF: list each attachment's name, type, size, byte-detected format, and whether it may be executable or disguised before extracting it.

Instructions

List the files embedded in a PDF (attached to the document or to a page): name, description, declared type and size, the type detected from the file's own bytes, and whether it can run on a computer or has a name that hides what it is. Use the names with extract_attachments.

Any password argument can be "ask": the user then types it on a local page, so it never passes through the chat.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "input_path": "<input_path>"
    },
    "name": "list_attachments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`password`	No
`input_path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`truncated`	Yes
`attachments`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.1.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by disclosing the security-oriented output signals (whether an attachment can execute, or has a name that disguises its true type) and the password-not-through-chat behavior. It does not discuss failure modes for encrypted PDFs or pagination, but the added behavioral context is substantive for a read-only tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action and the returned fields, then a short routing sentence, then the password caveat as its own paragraph. The phrase 'whether it can run on a computer or has a name that hides what it is' is wordier than needed but still carries information rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete: action, scope, output contents, downstream sibling, and the special password sentinel are all present. Only edge cases (encrypted files with no password, PDFs without attachments) are unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden; it does explain the non-obvious parameter by documenting the special "ask" value for password and its local-page flow, which is meaning the schema does not convey. input_path is left implicit, but it is self-evident for a single-file tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and resource (list the files embedded in a PDF) and enumerates exactly what is reported: name, description, declared type, size, byte-detected type, and executability/name-masking flags. It also scopes the resource ('attached to the document or to a page') and points to the sibling extract_attachments, so the agent can separate listing from extraction without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use the names with extract_attachments' gives an explicit follow-on routing hint that distinguishes this inspection tool from the extraction tool. It also explains the practical condition for the password argument (use "ask" so the user types it locally). It stops short of stating when listing is unnecessary or what happens if the PDF has no attachments, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.