Get downloadable URLs for an asset of the library (the original file on permanent storage, plus its thumbnail), e.g. to save it or send it to another service like a Drive. The download_url forces a file download with a clean filename and stays valid 24h; the file_url is the permanent public URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | Asset (id from search_assets, or exact name) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains that download_url forces a file download with a clean filename and expires in 24h, while file_url is a permanent public URL. This is exactly the kind of operational nuance an agent needs to select the right URL and is not derivable from annotations or the schema.
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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose, then packs essential URL behavior (expiration, filename forcing, permanence) into the second sentence. Every clause earns its place, keeping the description compact and scannable.
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?
With no output schema, the description names the two key return fields (download_url and file_url) and their validity/permanence, which is strong. However, it is slightly ambiguous how the thumbnail URL maps to these fields—the description says URLs for the original plus its thumbnail but does not explicitly specify which returned property corresponds to the thumbnail. Given the tool's simplicity and the valuable details provided, this is a minor 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents 'asset' as 'id from search_assets, or exact name'. The tool description itself does not add new parameter semantics beyond restating that the asset belongs to the library. Since the schema carries the full load, a 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('downloadable URLs for an asset of the library'), and explicitly distinguishes the asset context from sibling tools like get_post_download_url by mentioning the library and the original file plus thumbnail. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiable from related download-URL tools.
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 a clear use context: 'e.g. to save it or send it to another service like a Drive.' It also scopes the tool to 'an asset of the library,' which implies when it should be used versus tools for posts or my-account posts. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full exclusion 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.
Each tool has a distinct target resource/action, and the descriptions are unusually explicit about differences (e.g., 'Distinct from the watchlist', 'Separate list from list_tags'). A few pairs are still easy to confuse without careful reading: delete_folder vs delete_folders differ only by singular/plural, and the three download-URL tools (get_post_download_url, get_asset_download_url, get_my_account_post_download_url) plus the category/tag families require attention to pick correctly.
The snake_case verb_noun pattern is followed consistently throughout (list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, delete_*, set_*, tag_*). Minor deviations: archive_folder and archive_my_accounts also perform restore despite their names, delete_folder/delete_folders split one operation by cardinality, and tag_posts/tag_my_account use a different verb style than the set_* family for metadata mutations.
At 56 tools, this far exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many,' even though the server spans multiple subdomains (watchlist, analysis, assignments, folders, my accounts, assets, Drive, categories/tags). Obvious consolidation candidates exist — delete_folder/delete_folders, the three download-URL getters, and the parallel list_my_account_* listers — and the sheer surface is heavy for an agent to navigate.
Core workflows are thoroughly covered with no dead ends: watchlist → analyze → assign → folder → track → approve has full lifecycle support, including reversible archive vs permanent delete choices. Minor gaps exist but are work-aroundable: no create/update for my accounts or models (app-side OAuth/admin only), no way to delete a viral post or a post note, and asset upload only happens in the app.
