list_libraryYour Aisma Library, newest first, with each edit's status.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_library"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobs | Yes | ||
| nextCursor | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value with the default ordering ('newest first') and payload content ('edit's status'), but says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or what happens when the cursor is exhausted.
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 compact fragment with zero waste, and the two most useful facts (ordering, payload content) are front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, which is penalized elsewhere.
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 output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but with two undocumented parameters and cursor-based paging, an agent has no way to know how to iterate through the library or how large a page it gets by default. For a paginated list tool this is a meaningful gap.
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?
Both parameters (limit, cursor) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions paging, the limit cap (max 100), or how the cursor is obtained. The existing output schema does not compensate for undocumented input parameters.
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?
The phrase 'Your Aisma Library, newest first, with each edit's status' makes clear this returns a collection of library videos ordered newest-first, each annotated with edit status. No explicit verb is used and no sibling is named, but no sibling tool overlaps in listing, so an agent can still distinguish it.
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 guidance is given on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_asset or get_job, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The ordering hint implies 'read the library' but there is no explicit when-to-use statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.