Retrieve previously licensed assets, newest first, to reuse them instead of licensing again.
List what the user has licensed before, newest first, to reuse it rather than license it again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page of results, from 1. | |
| per_page | No | Results per page, at most 50. | |
| asset_type | No | image |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds the useful ordering guarantee ('newest first') but omits pagination behavior and, critically, the default asset_type=image filter that silently narrows results.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the action, then ordering, then motivation. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the operation is simple. Still, for a tool whose default behavior is filtered to one asset type, the description should disclose the image-only default and pagination limits rather than leaving both to the schema.
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 67%: page and per_page are documented in the schema, but asset_type has only an enum and a default of 'image' with no explanation. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, leaving the agent unaware that the default call returns only images.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List ... licensed') and adds scope details (newest first) that let an agent distinguish it from sibling listers like list_collections and list_subscriptions. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
'to reuse it rather than license it again' gives a purpose-level hint about when this tool is the right call, which is more than nothing. However, it never says when NOT to use it, offers no alternative tools for related lookups, and doesn't mention that results are filtered by asset type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.