fetch_assetResolve any generated asset path or URL into a clickable absolute URL and a direct download link for immediate access.
Resolve a generated asset reference (a /generated/… path or any URL) to a clickable absolute URL + a direct download URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | the asset url or /generated/ path | |
| name | No | optional filename for the download |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.161Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "downloadUrl": {
- "description": "a direct download URL for the asset",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "url": {
- "description": "the clickable absolute asset URL",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that by specifying the return shape (absolute URL and download URL) and accepted input forms (/generated/ path or any URL). It does not cover error behavior or authentication, but the safety profile is covered by annotations.
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?
The entire description is one concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes the most important input and output details. There is no wasted text or redundant restatement of the title.
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 two-parameter tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, this description is complete. It explains what the tool takes, what it returns, and the kind of inputs it handles. No critical information is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
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 schema already documents the url and name parameters. The description adds marginal context by clarifying 'any URL' is accepted, but does not meaningfully expand on the parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and identifies the exact resource ('generated asset reference') and output ('clickable absolute URL + a direct download URL'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like upload_file or store_get by focusing on URL resolution rather than storage or retrieval.
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?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever a generated asset reference or URL needs to be converted into clickable and downloadable URLs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough that an agent can recognize the correct use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.