entry-offline-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

entry_object_assets

Add, remove, or rename an object's pictures and sounds using library assets or local image and audio files for Entry projects.

Instructions

오브젝트의 모양(picture)/소리(sound) 관리. add_picture: library_ids(entry_search_assets kind=picture의 id) 또는 files(로컬 이미지 경로; 상대경로는 작업폴더/images 기준). add_sound: library_ids(kind=sound의 id) 또는 files(mp3/wav 경로; 상대경로는 작업폴더/sounds 기준). remove_picture / remove_sound / rename_picture / rename_sound: name(현재 이름) [+ new_name].

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "object": "<object>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "entry_object_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`files`	No
`action`	Yes
`object`	Yes
`new_name`	No
`library_ids`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful operational details like relative path bases (images/sounds) and accepted sound formats (mp3/wav), but it does not explain whether remove operations are irreversible, whether adds can duplicate or overwrite, or what permissions/returns are involved.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: one-line purpose followed by action-specific parameter notes. Every sentence carries operational information and there is no unnecessary wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-action mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers action-specific parameters but omits the meaning of the required 'object' parameter, destructive side effects, and any return/error behavior. It is adequate for parameter selection but not complete enough for safe invocation across all actions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning: it maps library_ids and files to the add actions, names the source tool and kind values for library_ids, gives path resolution rules, and explains name vs new_name for remove/rename. It still leaves the required 'object' parameter unexplained and does not clarify whether library_ids and files are mutually exclusive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource as an object's picture/sound assets and enumerates six concrete operations, so the tool's basic purpose is clear. However, the opening verb '관리' is generic and there is no explicit differentiation from siblings beyond referencing entry_search_assets as a source for library_ids.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives per-action parameter guidance and implies that library_ids come from entry_search_assets with kind=picture or kind=sound, which is useful workflow context. It does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as entry_preview_assets or entry_object_op, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.