Retrieves metadata—ID, type name, relative path, and extension—for a content asset using its GUID, so you can identify and locate project assets.
Returns metadata (Id, TypeName, RelativePath, Extension) for the content asset with the given GUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| typeName | Yes | ||
| extension | Yes | ||
| relativePath | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds value by naming the exact metadata fields returned, but says nothing about behavior on an invalid or missing GUID (error vs empty result) or about path formatting/casing.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the return fields enumerated inline; every clause earns its place and there is no filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be restated in prose. For a simple one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; the only missing piece is failure behavior for a bad GUID and a pointer to how GUIDs are obtained.
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 carry the load; it does clarify that the opaque 'id' string is the asset's GUID. However, it gives no hint on where a GUID comes from (content_search/content_resolve_guid) or its format, so the single parameter remains only partially disambiguated.
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 (Returns) and resource (metadata for the content asset with the given GUID) and enumerates the returned fields (Id, TypeName, RelativePath, Extension). It is clearly distinct from content_search or content_resolve_guid in intent, though it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like content_search (find an asset) or content_resolve_guid (obtain a GUID). The only implied rule is that the caller must already hold a GUID, which is already encoded by the required 'id' parameter in the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.