mobile_artifacts_listList metadata stubs (URI, name, MIME, size) for Android device files under the artifact root without reading binary contents.
List metadata stubs (uri, name, mime, size) for files under the artifact root. Does not embed binary contents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| artifacts | Yes | ||
| artifactRoot | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by specifying the shape of the returned metadata (uri, name, mime, size) and explicitly ruling out binary payload retrieval.
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?
Two short sentences, purpose and return shape front-loaded, negative scope immediately after. Nothing is wasted or repeated from the schema.
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-value documentation is not strictly required, yet the description still names the stub fields. For a read-only one-optional-param list, only pagination/limit semantics and the artifact-root location are missing.
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?
The single 'limit' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it — no statement of whether it caps total results, whether listing is paginated, or what the 200 default implies. With a non-zero uncovered parameter, the description fails to compensate.
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?
Specific verb+resource ('List metadata stubs ... for files under the artifact root') with the exact returned fields enumerated. It is readily distinguishable from the only nearby sibling, mobile_artifacts_prune, by the verb, but the sibling is never named, so it falls short of the 5 bar.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'Does not embed binary contents' signals this is the cheap enumeration path, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no mention of alternatives such as prune or the analyze tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.