picorn_projects_inspectList every editor file, imported asset, and the project brand profile with named colors and saved logos or visual references. File entries include their current thumbnail, status, creation URL and canonical /studio/editor?runId=... editorUrl. Always give the user that editorUrl.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspaceProjectId | Yes | ||
| workspaceProjectKey | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by listing read-only items (files, assets, brand profile). It adds context beyond annotations by specifying the included fields (thumbnail, status, creation URL, editorUrl) and instructs the agent to always surface editorUrl, which is useful behavioral guidance.
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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action and scope, the second details what file entries include, and the third gives a clear user-facing directive. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler.
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 read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return contents (files, assets, brand profile, and specific fields) and provides the instruction about editorUrl. It does not explain the meaning of 'status' or the structure of the response, but given the annotations and the nature of the tool, it is reasonably complete.
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 schema lists two required parameters (workspaceProjectId, workspaceProjectKey) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain their meaning or format, leaving the agent without clues about how to fill them. This is a critical gap for a tool with required params.
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 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: every editor file, imported asset, and the project brand profile. This distinguishes it from other project tools like picorn_editor_inspect_project by the detailed scope of what is listed.
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 implies this tool is for inspecting a marketing project's contents, and the instruction 'Always give the user that editorUrl' provides a usage directive. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the similar picorn_editor_inspect_project or any other alternatives.
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 targets a distinct resource or operation, with clear boundaries between image generation/editing and the many editor/video actions. Descriptions further clarify any potential overlap, making misselection unlikely.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but the projects_* tools (create, inspect, update) reverse to noun_verb, and capabilities is a bare noun. This mixed convention is readable but not fully consistent.
With 30 tools, the set exceeds the 25-tool threshold and feels heavy for an MCP server. While the broad scope justifies some size, many tools could be consolidated or split into focused servers.
Core image, editor, and video workflows are covered, but there are notable gaps such as no delete operations for editor/video projects, no update for video projects, and no lifecycle management for imported assets. These missing operations can create dead ends.