flow_list_assetsList generated videos and images newest first, including IDs, prompts, and local file paths. Filter by media type and set a result limit to locate and manage created assets.
List videos and images created by this server (newest first), with ids, prompts and local paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds useful behavior: results are newest first, scoped to assets created by this server, and include ids, prompts, and local paths. It lacks detail on pagination defaults and rate limits, but adds substantial context beyond the annotation.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the resource, scope, ordering, and return fields.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core return content and sort order, which is helpful. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the missing explanation of 'kind' and 'limit' leaves the definition only minimally complete.
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%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It does not explain the 'kind' filter (video vs image) or the 'limit' parameter at all, leaving both optional parameters semantically opaque.
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 ('List') and resource ('videos and images created by this server'), making it clearly distinct from the generation and model-listing siblings. An agent can immediately tell this is the read-only asset inventory tool.
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 listing purpose is implied by the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus flow_list_models or the generation tools. No exclusions or alternative-selection advice are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.