tela

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List attachments

list_attachments

Read-only

Retrieve details of all files attached to a wiki page, including name, type, size, URLs, and markdown snippet, for previewing, downloading, or sharing.

Instructions

List the files attached to a page (uploads AND rclone-synced files): name, mime, byte size, a stable serve URL, an absolute download_url (fetch the bytes), a share_url (give THIS to a person — it opens a page that previews the file and unfurls as a card in chat, where download_url just downloads), and a ready-to-embed markdown snippet. embedded tells you the page body already references the file.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page_id`	Yes	page whose attachments to list

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`attachments`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.11.0Oct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / attachments / items / properties / share_path
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / attachments / items / properties / share_url
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / attachments / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "name",
-  "mime",
-  "byte_size",
-  "hash",
-  "url",
-  "embedded",
-  "download_url",
-  "markdown"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "name",
+  "mime",
+  "byte_size",
+  "hash",
+  "url",
+  "share_path",
+  "embedded",
+  "download_url",
+  "share_url",
+  "markdown"
+]

First observedv0.1.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by explaining the semantic difference between share_url (preview page, chats unfurl) and download_url (raw bytes) and by flagging the `embedded` marker, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or empty results.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded, but the bulk is a single run-on enumeration of return fields (name, mime, size, three URLs, markdown, embedded). Because an output schema exists, most of that enumeration duplicates structured data; only the share_url vs download_url clause clearly earns its place.

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?

With full schema coverage, safe-read annotations, and a published output schema, an agent has almost everything needed to call this correctly. The remaining gap is tool-selection guidance against list_space_files and the upload/delete attachment siblings.

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?

Only one parameter (page_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing about the identifier's form; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List the files attached to a page' with an explicit scope qualifier ('uploads AND rclone-synced files'). This distinguishes it from raw file tools, but it never names the nearest sibling (list_space_files) or contrasts scope with it, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is a useful consumer hint ('give THIS to a person') about share_url vs download_url, but nothing about when to choose this tool over list_space_files, get_page, or the attachment-upload tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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