fetch_assetConvert a /generated/ asset path or URL into a clickable absolute link and a direct download link, with an optional filename for downloads.
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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains that a generated asset reference or URL is resolved into a clickable absolute URL and a direct download URL.
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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, the accepted input, and the resulting output. Every phrase contributes necessary information with no waste.
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 low-complexity tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers what the tool does and what it returns, even though no output schema exists. It omits only alternative-tool guidance and does not address the optional 'name' parameter.
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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the URL input example and does not mention the optional 'name' parameter or add syntax beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.
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 a precise resource ('generated asset reference'), and it states the output form. It is clear, but it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from any sibling tool such as get_drive_file or fetch_social_data.
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 implies usage by describing the accepted input ('a /generated/… path or any URL'), but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. Guidance is present only at an implied level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.