list_assetsRun the asset pipeline to enumerate asset IDs, types, sizes, importers, generated files, warnings, and unused IDs.
Run the asset pipeline: every asset id, type, size and importer, plus generated files, warnings and possibly unused ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | Project root. Absolute path, or relative to the server's root. Default: the server's root. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful output-shape context (generated files, warnings, possibly unused ids) and hints at non-trivial pipeline work via 'Run the asset pipeline', but says nothing about cost, caching, or whether the pipeline can fail.
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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the action and followed by the payload contents. Slightly list-heavy but every clause earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields returned. With readOnly covered by annotations and the sole parameter documented in schema, only usage guidance is 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?
Only one optional parameter ('root') with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema is complete.
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 action ('Run the asset pipeline') and enumerates exactly what is produced: asset id, type, size, importer, generated files, warnings, unused ids. That is concrete and identifiable, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the many sibling tools.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer from context that this is the enumeration tool for project assets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.