List every asset in the estate with its type and value. Your Estate Context already lists the assets, so call this only when you need the full set fresh (e.g. right after creating or updating one) or the context block was truncated. For one asset's linked tasks, use get_asset_detail instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| estate_id | Yes | The estate to act on. Call list_my_estates first to get this id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context: assets are already surfaced in Estate Context, so this call is redundant except after mutations or truncation. It stops short of describing pagination or result ordering/size, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Three tight sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the usage caveat and the alternative-tool pointer. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description names the returned content (type and value), the sole parameter is fully documented in schema, and usage boundaries are explicit. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and know when not to.
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?
Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already documents estate_id and even points at list_my_estates for obtaining it. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List every asset in the estate') plus the returned fields ('with its type and value'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_asset_detail. An agent can tell which tool to pick without opening either schema.
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?
Gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('only when you need the full set fresh... or the context block was truncated'), a concrete trigger example (right after creating/updating an asset), and names the alternative for the single-asset case. Both the positive and exclusionary guidance are present.
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.