jira_get_attachmentsList all attachments on a Jira issue by providing its issue key. Quickly access files, images, or documents attached to any Jira ticket.
List attachments on a Jira issue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_key | Yes | Jira issue key (e.g. PROJ-123) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1Input schema / properties / issue_key / minLengthRemoved value: -1Input schema / properties / issue_key / patternAdded value: +"^[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9_]+-\\d+$"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.6.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile, so the description is not the main carrier here. But it adds nothing further — no note on whether results are paginated, what auth/scope is required, or what attachment metadata is returned.
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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though it leans toward under-specification rather than deliberate brevity.
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 with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any hint of the return shape (attachment id/name/size needed to chain into download) and pagination behavior, which an agent would need since there is 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 description coverage is 100% and the single issue_key parameter is fully documented in the schema, including a pattern and example. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List attachments') scoped to a Jira issue, which functionally separates it from the download/delete/upload attachment siblings. However, it never names an alternative tool or explicitly delineates the boundary, so it falls short of the top band.
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, and no mention of alternatives such as jira_download_attachment (to fetch content) or jira_delete_attachment. Usage is only inferable from the bare purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.