List JumpServer assets by querying the observed permissions endpoint used by the graphical interface. Filter by asset name, node, limit, or offset to locate authorized resources without a browser dependency.
List assets through the observed perms endpoint used by the current GUI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | ||
| asset | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The 'observed perms endpoint' hint suggests a permissions-aware listing, which is a useful behavioral trait, but the description is silent on pagination, filtering, defaults, and output structure.
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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the key verb 'List'. It has zero waste, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing critical context, so it's not a perfect score.
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?
Given 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It fails to explain return values, filtering semantics, or the endpoint's quirks, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.
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 0%, yet the description does not mention any of the four parameters (node, asset, limit, offset). The parameter names alone are insufficient, especially 'node' and 'asset' which could be filters or selectors, leaving the agent without added meaning.
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 opens with 'List assets', a clear verb+resource pair that immediately states the primary function. The phrase 'used by the current GUI' gives contextual provenance, and the plural 'assets' distinguishes it from sibling tools like jms_get_asset and jms_list_nodes.
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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual hint is 'used by the current GUI', which weakly implies GUI parity but does not mention when to prefer this over jms_get_asset or jms_list_nodes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.