Attach a local file to a CRM entity such as a company, contact, or lead by sending its base64-encoded content via JSON.
Attach a local file to an entity (company, contact, lead, project, task, portfolio, calendar_event, or mesh) via the base64 JSON lane.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| entity_id | Yes | ||
| entity_type | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing behavioral: no permissions/auth requirements, no size limits (a real constraint for base64 uploads), no note on overwrite/duplication if a file with the same name already exists. 'base64 JSON lane' hints at encoding but gives no size or payload implications.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and packs the entity-type list inline. Efficient, though the entity enumeration makes it long-ish and the trailing 'base64 JSON lane' phrase is jargon with no unpacking.
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 mutation tool with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, this is too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but auth requirements, size/format constraints, and identifier semantics are all missing.
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% and the description only marginally compensates. It implies path is a local filesystem path and enumerates entity_type values, but entity_id is never explained (which identifier? name vs numeric id?) and no parameter syntax or format is given.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Attach a local file to an entity'. It enumerates the valid entity types, which usefully narrows scope beyond what the schema provides (entity_type has no enum). No sibling does file attachment, so differentiation is implicit but adequate.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative download_attachment sibling or when this lane applies versus other attachment mechanisms. The 'base64 JSON lane' hint is the only usage cue and it is not explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.