Search the organization's asset library (videos and images uploaded for content production) by name, description or tags. The results are text only: call get_asset_preview on an asset to actually SEE its content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of assets to return (max 50) | |
| query | No | Free-text search over name, description and tags. Empty = most recent assets. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the lower bar applies. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait not in annotations or schema: results are text only, so the agent knows it must follow up with get_asset_preview for visual content. Pagination/return-shape details are not covered.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded and the follow-up routing (get_asset_preview) is stated second, which is exactly where an agent needs it.
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 simple read-only, two-parameter search with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete and even pre-empts output expectations by noting results are text only. It could mention pagination or result ordering, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.
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%, so both parameters are already documented (limit with min/max/default, and query with the empty-means-recent semantics). The description restates the searchable fields but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 (search) and resource (organization's asset library), and clarifies the scope (videos and images uploaded for content production) plus the searchable fields (name, description, tags). It also distinguishes itself from get_asset_preview, so an agent can tell the two apart 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?
Explicitly routes the agent to get_asset_preview when the goal is to actually view asset content, which is a clear alternative. It lacks a negative directive on when NOT to use search (e.g., for browsing without a query, though the schema's empty-string default covers that), keeping it just short of a full 5.
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.
