Retrieve and search uploaded images, models, fonts, audio, and PDFs from an asset gallery with pagination, so assistants can find and reuse table assets.
Read/search the uploaded asset gallery (images, models, fonts, audio, PDFs) with pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| table_id | No | Omit to use the active connected table. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is structured. The description adds only that results are paginated and which media types appear, with no detail on ordering, total counts, or how pagination interacts with search results.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource and adds the two key modifiers (asset types, pagination). Zero filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description should say what an asset record looks like and how search matching works. It covers scope and asset types adequately but leaves the query semantics and result shape undefined for a four-parameter tool.
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 coverage is only 25% — just table_id is documented. The description mentions 'search' and 'pagination', weakly implying query and limit/offset semantics, but never explains whether query matches filenames, types, or tags, nor how limit/offset apply. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb pair ('read/search') and resource ('uploaded asset gallery'), and enumerates the asset types covered (images, models, fonts, audio, PDFs). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling asset_upload, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus asset_upload, library_list, or docs_search, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the 'read/search' verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.