Browse a Fusion document's CAM library folders for tools or posts. Pass a URL to inspect specific assets, or omit it to start at the library root.
Browse tool/post library folders and asset URLs; omit URL for the Fusion library root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| kind | Yes | ||
| document_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a non-destructive read operation but does not state it explicitly, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or what the response contains. The description is too terse to disclose behavioral traits beyond the literal action.
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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is highly efficient and well-structured, even though brevity sacrifices completeness.
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?
The tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only clarifies part of the url behavior. document_id and the exact meaning of 'kind' beyond the enum are unaddressed, and the return format is unknown. An agent would need to infer or guess important details, making the definition incomplete.
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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains 'kind' via 'tool/post' and 'url' via the omit instruction, but document_id is left completely unexplained. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the partial hints are insufficient for an agent to construct a correct call.
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 clearly states the verb 'browse' and the resource 'tool/post library folders and asset URLs', and adds a specific behavior for the root. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fusion_cam_tools or fusion_cam_inventory, but the purpose is specific enough to be distinct.
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 offers one usage tip for the optional url parameter (omit for root), but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over its CAM siblings, prerequisites like document activation, or typical usage scenarios. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.