Retrieve the images, videos, audio, documents, and downloads declared by a signed web page for AI agent consumption.
List the images, videos, audio, documents, and downloads a signed page declares.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Page URL (https) | |
| profile | No | Content profile (default aimd) | |
| publicKeyValue | No | ed25519:… key to verify the page signature |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add one meaningful behavioral detail: the assets are those a signed page declares, not arbitrary page resources. However, it does not disclose what happens for unsigned pages, whether signature verification is performed, or error/response behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds information about the tool's output scope, making it appropriately concise.
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?
For a medium-complexity tool with no output schema, the description plus schema is adequate but incomplete. The agent still lacks information about return structure, pagination, signature verification behavior, and failure cases, though the parameter list is fully covered.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning to the url, profile, or publicKeyValue parameters, but the schema already documents them sufficiently; the description merely lists output categories.
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?
The description states a clear action and resource: list the images, videos, audio, documents, and downloads declared by a signed page. It is specific about the asset categories, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like verify_asset, fetch_aifeed, or verify_manifest.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch_aifeed or verify_asset. The phrase 'a signed page declares' implies some connection to verification, but there are no explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or routing cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.