AbleSign MCP

list_media_files

List media files from AbleSign using filters like tags, formats, orientations, date range, and folder to find specific assets for digital signage playlists.

Instructions

List media files. Multi-value format/orientation filters are comma-separated.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_media_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No
`limit`	No
`title`	No
`offset`	No
`formats`	No
`sort_by`	No
`folder_id`	No
`from_date`	No
`orientations`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it lists media files and mentions comma-separated filters, but does not disclose pagination behavior (offset/limit), default sorting, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a read operation, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise: one sentence plus a note. It front-loads the core purpose. While efficient, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness, e.g., mentioning common use cases.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return structure (despite having an output schema), pagination, or filtering semantics beyond the comma-separated note. An agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds that multi-value format/orientation filters are comma-separated, which partially explains two of nine parameters. The remaining seven parameters (tags, limit, title, offset, sort_by, folder_id, from_date) have no semantic explanation, forcing the agent to rely solely on parameter names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'media files'. It distinguishes from sibling list tools (list_web_apps, etc.) by specifying the resource. The additional note on filter formatting is helpful.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_media_file or other list tools. The description does not provide context-criteria or exclusions, making it ambiguous when the agent should select it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server