list_assetsList reusable media owned by the linked account, including the asset IDs accepted by video creation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | ||
| cost | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| assets | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| plan_id | No | ||
| style_id | No | ||
| video_id | No | ||
| available | No | ||
| import_id | No | ||
| output_id | No | ||
| studio_url | No | ||
| version_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"New value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Clypmint list_assets result. Error results carry error; successful requests expose the identifiers and state available for the next step. Signed media stays in private metadata.",
+ "properties": {
+ "assets": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "available": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "code": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "cost": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "dry_run": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "import_id": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "output_id": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "plan_id": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "state": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "integer",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "studio_url": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "style_id": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "version_id": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "video_id": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context with the ownership constraint (only assets belonging to the linked account) and the fact that the returned IDs are the ones video creation accepts. Pagination/ordering behavior is not mentioned.
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 well-formed sentence with no filler, front-loading the primary action and scope, and ending on the detail that makes the output actionable.
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 zero-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema describing the returned assets, the description covers identity, scope, and downstream use. It omits only minor operational detail such as result limits or ordering.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or selection arguments are needed, and the schema already carries 100% coverage.
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 uses a specific verb+resource ("List reusable media") and adds scope ("owned by the linked account") plus the downstream purpose ("asset IDs accepted by video creation"). It clearly separates this from write-oriented siblings like import_asset, but never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this to discover asset IDs before video creation, since the description ties the output to that workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative such as list_videos.
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.