ppdm-mcp-server

list_assets

Lists protected assets in PPDM with filters for name and type, helping you find specific backup-managed resources for monitoring or control.

Instructions

List protected assets in PPDM. Filter by name or type.

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_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Asset name substring filter
`type`	No	Asset type filter
`limit`	No	Max results

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.2.2Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: not that it is read-only (implied by "List" but unstated), not the default page size of 50, not whether the two filters combine as AND or OR, and not how results are ordered or truncated. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. The brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being wasteful, so structure is fine but not exemplary.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must explain the shape of the returned list and pagination behavior, and it does neither. An agent cannot tell from this text what a result entry contains or what happens when more than 50 assets match.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter including limit and its default is already documented in the schema. The description mentions name and type filters but adds no matching semantics (substring vs exact, case sensitivity) and omits limit entirely, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("List protected assets in PPDM") and names the filterable fields, so an agent knows this is a filtered read over assets. It does not differentiate itself from sibling list operations (list_policies, list_failed_jobs, etc.) or clarify what an "asset" represents in this domain.

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?

"Filter by name or type" restates the schema rather than giving guidance on when to call this tool versus the many other list_* siblings. There is no statement of prerequisites, scope, or when-not to use it.

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