Resolve an asset UID to its file path and metadata, returning path, MIME type, format, and size. Use it to get the physical file location for a vault node with has_asset: true.
Resolve an asset UID to its file path and metadata. Returns {path, mime_type, format, size_bytes}. Use this when you need the physical file location for a vault node with has_asset: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| format | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape {path, mime_type, format, size_bytes} and the has_asset precondition, but says nothing about failure behavior when a UID has no asset, whether the path is absolute or vault-relative, or any permission/IO cost of resolving.
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?
Three short lines, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return shape, then the usage condition. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description does well to state the return fields. However, the undocumented 'format' parameter and the absence of any error/edge-case behavior leave an agent without enough to invoke it confidently in non-happy-path cases.
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% with two parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'uid' is an asset UID, but the 'format' parameter is never mentioned at all — its purpose (output conversion? filter? default null) is left entirely ambiguous.
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 and resource: 'Resolve an asset UID to its file path and metadata', and names the returned fields. An agent can distinguish it from write/save_asset siblings by the read-only 'resolve' framing, though 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?
Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this when you need the physical file location for a vault node with has_asset: true.' That is a concrete precondition, but it names no alternatives (e.g., find_unregistered_assets) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.