Browse catalog blocks and components by tag or item type to find assets for video editing.
Browse Hyperframes catalog blocks/components.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| item_type | No | ||
| overwrite | No | Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.4Input schema / properties / overwriteAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.",
+ "title": "Overwrite",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.16.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Browse' weakly implies a read operation, but it does not state read-only behavior, pagination, permissions, or why a mutation-oriented 'overwrite' parameter exists on a browse tool — a notable unexplained behavior.
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 is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is tersely under-specified rather than optimally concise for a 3-parameter tool. It earns its place as a purpose statement but leaves too much unsaid.
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 not be explained. But with no annotations, two undocumented filtering parameters, and an unexplained overwrite flag, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.
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 only 33%: tag and item_type are bare strings with no descriptions or enums, and the description does not explain them at all. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage, and the meaning of 'overwrite' on a catalog-browsing tool is not clarified.
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?
States a specific verb (Browse) and resource (Hyperframes catalog blocks/components), so the agent can tell this is a listing/discovery tool. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like hyperframes_compositions or hyperframes_info, leaving some ambiguity about which catalog-oriented tool to choose.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions. It does not say when to use this versus hyperframes_compositions or hyperframes_add_block, nor does it mention prerequisites such as whether tags or item types must exist beforehand.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.