Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
webex-mcp

webex-mcp

by yuryev89
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

webex_save_message_files

Save all attachments from a Webex message locally and return saved file paths plus any failures.

Instructions

Save all message attachments locally (webex_save_file limits); return paths and failures.

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": {
      "messageId": "<messageId>"
    },
    "name": "webex_save_message_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageIdYesMessage ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses partial-failure semantics ('return paths and failures') and that files are written to local storage, but says nothing about where files land, overwrite behavior, permissions/auth requirements, or rate limits for a multi-file write operation.

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?

One dense sentence with the action front-loaded and return behavior trailing; nothing is wasted. The parenthetical is the only clause that costs clarity more than it earns.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover return content ('paths and failures'), which is good. But for a filesystem-writing tool it omits the destination location and overwrite policy, leaving an agent unable to predict side effects.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single messageId parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'message attachments' corroborates that messageId scopes to a message's attachments but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Save all message attachments locally') and signals plural scope, contrasting with the singular sibling webex_save_file. The parenthetical 'webex_save_file limits' hints at differentiation but is ambiguous about whether it inherits or bypasses those limits.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The reference to 'webex_save_file limits' implies a tradeoff with the single-file sibling, but it never says explicitly when to use this tool versus webex_save_file, webex_download_file, or webex_get_message_images. Usage is only inferable, not stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools