Retrieve generated media artifact metadata including absolute paths, hashes, MIME types, and sizes from the global ledger. Use to verify or locate outputs.
List generated media artifacts and their absolute paths, hashes, MIME types, and sizes from the global ledger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| run_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that: results come from a global ledger rather than a user- or run-scoped view, and the returned fields include absolute paths, hashes, MIME types, and sizes. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.
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 one compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by concrete return-field details. There is no filler, tautology, or repetition of the tool title.
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?
For a list tool with no output schema and three optional parameters, the description covers what the result contains but not how the optional filters behave, whether the ledger spans all runs, or what a default call returns. The readOnly annotations reduce safety concerns, and the basic purpose is clear, but an agent still lacks some context needed to confidently use the optional filters.
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% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (kind, limit, run_id). While kind roughly aligns with 'media artifacts', limit and run_id are left entirely to name inference. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema itself already exposes.
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 a specific verb and resource ('List generated media artifacts') and enumerates the exact metadata returned: absolute paths, hashes, MIME types, and sizes. The 'global ledger' scope and artifact focus clearly separate it from sibling tools like list_models, list_runs, and list_teams.
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 implies this is the tool to use when retrieving generated artifact metadata, but it gives no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to alternatives. An agent must infer when to prefer list_artifacts over run-scoped tools such as get_media_run or list_runs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.