FS_MCP_thin

Get Requester Assets

get_requester_assets

Retrieve all assets assigned to a specific requester using their requester ID. View a user's complete asset inventory to support analysis and ticket triage.

Instructions

Retrieve all assets assigned to a specific requester

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "requester_id": "<requester_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_requester_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`requester_id`	Yes	The requester ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('Retrieve') and describes the filtering by requester. However, it does not mention pagination, authorization needs, or behavior for invalid/nonexistent requester IDs. This is a minimal but non-misleading disclosure.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the relevant scope. It has no filler or redundancy and earns its place with direct, clear wording.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. However, without an output schema, it would be more complete if it stated the return payload (e.g., a list of asset objects) or error behavior. It is adequate for a basic lookup but not thorough.

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?

The input schema describes requester_id as 'The requester ID' and coverage is 100%. The description's phrase 'specific requester' maps to that parameter but adds no extra detail about ID format, constraints, or usage semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter meaning.

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 action ('Retrieve all assets') and the resource scope ('assigned to a specific requester'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_assets (all assets) and get_asset (single asset) by specifying the requester filter.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when assets for a requester are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, making the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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