Retrieve attachment metadata for a TeamStorm task to view file names and types without downloading files.
Retrieve attachment metadata for a TeamStorm task without downloading files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskKey | Yes | ||
| attachments | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral context that attachments are not downloaded, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.
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 tool is simple—one required parameter—and has a true output schema plus idempotent/read-only annotations. The description covers the key behavioral distinction (no download) and doesn't need to explain return values because the output schema exists.
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 must compensate, but it only says 'for a TeamStorm task' without elaborating on task_key format or provenance. The parameter name and string type in the schema carry most of the meaning. Only minimal value added.
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?
Description names a specific action ('Retrieve'), resource ('attachment metadata'), and scope ('for a TeamStorm task'), and distinguishes itself by noting it does not download files. This separates it clearly from sibling getter tools like teamstorm_get_comments or teamstorm_get_task.
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 implies the tool is for metadata-only needs, explicitly disclaiming file download. It doesn't name sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from other getters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.