search_my_librarySearch your library by prompt substring (metadata only — id, prompt, date). Optional folderId scopes to one folder. Only your own assets are returned. This does NOT display images; to show/display results to the user, pass their ids to show_media.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default 20. | |
| query | Yes | ||
| folderId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: search is metadata-only (id, prompt, date), returns only own assets, and does not display images. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, but omits details like pagination or result ordering.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by scoping and a key exclusion/alternative. Every sentence adds value with no filler or redundancy.
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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers search field semantics, scope limitation, ownership, folder scoping, and the critical non-display behavior with a pointer to show_media. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.
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 coverage is low (only limit has a description). The description compensates by explaining query as 'prompt substring' and folderId as 'scopes to one folder.' It does not add detail for limit, but limit already has a schema description (Default 20), so the compensation is sufficient.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search your library by prompt substring' and clearly delimits scope to metadata only (id, prompt, date). It distinguishes from sibling tools like show_media by explicitly stating 'This does NOT display images.'
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?
It explicitly provides an alternative for when display is needed: 'to show/display results to the user, pass their ids to show_media.' It also sets usage context by noting 'Only your own assets are returned' and the optional folderId scoping, giving clear when-to-use guidance.
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.
Several tools occupy nearly identical semantic ground: apply_iphone_realism and apply_ugc both describe casual phone-shot looks, upload_media and upload_reference_asset both accept uploads, and analyze_video overlaps heavily with analyze_video_report. The many apply_* style tools are essentially one tool parameterized by style, so agents can easily select the wrong one.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern such as generate_image, list_my_videos, get_editor_run, and upscale_video. A few outliers like voice, talking_avatar_video, and video_to_prompt do not use the same verb-first convention, but they are still readable and do not create significant confusion.
At 55 tools, the surface is far beyond what is appropriate for an MCP server; many of these be collapsed or parameterized, especially the 10 apply_* style wrappers and several overlapping upload/status helpers. Even for a broad media platform, this scale forces a huge context window and makes selecting the right tool impractical.
The surface covers generation, media display, video analysis, and Editor workflows well, but there are obvious gaps in library lifecycle management: move_asset and create_folder are referenced in tool descriptions without being exposed, and there is no clean way to delete or reorganize media assets. Agents following the descriptions will try to call tools that do not exist.