Retrieve the background assets linked to a specific app by its ID, with an optional pagination limit, to inspect or manage app background asset relationships.
GET /v1/apps/{id}/relationships/backgroundAssets (GET /v1/apps/{id}/relationships/backgroundAssets)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| limit | No | maximum resources per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses nothing: not whether this is a safe read, whether results are paginated (the schema exposes a limit parameter), what the response contains, or what authorization scope is required.
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?
It is short, but the single line simply repeats the same path twice, so half the text is pure redundancy rather than information. Brief but not economical.
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 relationship-fetch endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least clarify that it returns relationship linkage (resource identifiers) rather than full related resources, and note pagination. None of that is present, leaving the agent dependent on the raw path alone.
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% and both parameters (id, limit) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about the id format or the limit semantics.
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 is essentially the tool name restated as a raw HTTP path, duplicated verbatim in parentheses. It conveys that the resource is the backgroundAssets relationship of an app, but adds no plain-language explanation of what the operation returns or how it differs from the sibling apps_background_assets_get_to_many_related.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely named alternatives (apps_background_assets_get_to_many_related, background_assets_versions_get_to_many_relationship) that an agent must choose between.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.