Skip to main content
Glama

Media library

assets_list
Read-only

Lists all media assets in the brand library, including uploads and generated content. Requires read scope.

Instructions

The media library: brand uploads and generated media. Needs the read scope.

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": "assets_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uploadsYes
generatedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.4

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds a non-obvious operational fact beyond that: the call requires the read scope, which the agent would otherwise have to discover through a failed call.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource identity front-loaded and the auth constraint second. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the auth scope is disclosed. What remains unstated is scale or ordering behavior (e.g., pagination or sort), a minor gap for a zero-parameter list tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, which establishes the baseline of 4 per the rubric. There is nothing for the description to compensate for, and it does not misdescribe any input.

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?

The description names the resource precisely ("the media library: brand uploads and generated media"), making it clear this is the assets collection distinct from posts_list or connections_list. The listing verb itself is only implied by the name, so it stops short of a full verb+resource statement.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions or exclusions, and no named alternatives among the many *_list siblings. The one requirement mentioned (read scope) is an invocation prerequisite rather than a usage rule.

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