Retrieve an app's asset library to obtain its ID for accessing and managing images and videos. Use this as the starting point for media library operations.
Get an app's asset library, the media library its images and videos live in. Start here for its ID. [GET /v1/apps/{id}/assetLibrary]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | App name, bundle ID (com.example.app) or numeric Apple ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the result provides an ID for downstream use, but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or auth beyond the endpoint string.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core purpose and the usage cue front-loaded, plus a compact endpoint reference. No wasted prose.
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 simple single-param read tool, the description covers purpose and the key workflow hint. With no output schema, it could say more about what the returned asset library contains (beyond 'an ID'), so it is adequate but not fully complete.
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 100% and the single param is fully documented in the schema (app name, bundle ID, or numeric Apple ID). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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+resource (Get an app's asset library) and clarifies the non-obvious concept with 'the media library its images and videos live in.' The purpose is clear without opening the schema, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with related sibling getters.
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?
'Start here for its ID' gives a concrete workflow cue: this is the entry point whose returned ID enables follow-up calls. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, but the sequencing guidance is actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.