List uploaded assets (avatars, videos, images, music). Returns signed URLs.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_assets"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by asset type | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 50, max 100) | |
| search | No | Search by title or tags |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return format ('signed URLs'), which is real behavioral value for a read tool, but says nothing about auth requirements, ordering, or pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit field.
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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The only waste is the imprecise type list, which repeats (and slightly muddies) what the schema already enumerates.
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-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return type but omits guidance on filtering strategy or result limits. Adequate minimum viability, with clear gaps for an agent choosing among the many asset-generating siblings.
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 100%, so type, limit, and search are already documented in the schema. The description's asset-type examples add only marginal meaning and are actually less precise than the enum, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.
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?
Specific verb+resource ('List uploaded assets') with parenthetical examples of what counts as an asset. It does not differentiate from the closest sibling, create_upload_url, nor reconcile its examples with the schema enum (which uses HOOK/DEMO/SOURCE/FINAL rather than 'videos').
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?
No statement of when to use this versus alternatives like list_products or create_upload_url, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'list'.
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.