Browse and retrieve a paginated list of organization assets, using cursor pagination and filters for kind, media type, or watermark ID.
List organization assets with cursor pagination. Scope: assets:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| media_type | No | ||
| watermark_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds two things beyond that: the pagination model (cursor) and the required permission scope (assets:read). It says nothing about return contents, default page size, or how pagination terminates.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the action and resource come first, then the pagination behavior and the permission scope. Nothing is repeated from the name or schema.
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 filtered collection tool with 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what a returned asset looks like, how to page through results, or what the filter parameters select, all of which the definition must supply here.
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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and does not meet it. 'Cursor pagination' loosely gestures at cursor and limit, but the kind enum (source/watermarked), media_type, watermark_id, and the 1-100 limit bounds are entirely undocumented anywhere.
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 specific verb and resource ('List organization assets') and adds the pagination mechanism, so the agent knows this is a collection read rather than the single-resource get_asset. Sibling tools like list_webhooks and list_storage_deliveries are implicitly distinguished by resource, but no sibling is named 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing against alternatives such as get_asset or download_asset. The only contextual statement, 'Scope: assets:read,' is an auth prerequisite rather than usage direction, so the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.