Search and list uploaded media files for the authenticated account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by media type: audio, image, video, or text | |
| limit | No | Max results to return (default 20, max 100) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read-only search operation. The description adds a useful behavioral constraint that results are limited to the authenticated account's uploaded media. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as return format, pagination details beyond schema, or any side effects. With the annotation covering safety, the description provides minimal added value beyond that.
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?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Search and list'), and contains no redundant or unnecessary information. It is concise and well-structured.
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 tool is simple with three optional parameters, full schema coverage, and a read-only annotation. The description adequately conveys the scope and purpose. Without an output schema, the return structure is unspecified, but pagination is inferable from the limit/offset parameters. Overall, the description is sufficient for the tool's complexity, though it could mention that results are paginated.
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?
The input schema covers all three parameters (type, limit, offset) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 description clearly states a specific verb+resource ('Search and list uploaded media files') and scope ('for the authenticated account'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like search_music or search_compels, even though the schema's type filter includes audio (which could also be handled by search_music). Thus, it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to search and list uploaded media for the authenticated account. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear that an agent can infer this is the general media search tool. No explicit 'when-not' guidance is given.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct action or resource. Groups like compels, lighting cues, webhooks, and account are clearly separated, and even similar tools (create_compel vs create_compel_from_music) have well-defined differences in input source.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., cancel_compel, launch_lighting_cue, register_webhook). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous verb choices.
With 30 tools, the server is above the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the scope includes multiple subdomains, the high number adds cognitive load and risks selection errors for an agent.
Core workflows are present (create, read, cancel, list, search, render), but missing update/delete for compels and media, and no way to modify render configuration beyond defaults.