Lists all placements using a specific image or video, including across localizations, so you can check dependencies before deleting or replacing the asset.
List every placement that uses an image or video, including other localizations, before deleting or replacing that asset
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assetId | Yes | ||
| mediaType | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — results include placements from other localizations, so the list is broader than the caller's current locale. It says nothing about read-only nature, pagination, or what happens if the asset is unused/not found.
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 sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the usage condition trailing. No wasted words, and the localization caveat is folded in economically.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage mean everything must come from the description. It explains purpose and timing but not the return shape (IDs vs full placement objects) or pagination, despite a sibling apple_get_next_page implying paged results.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description partially compensates: 'an image or video' maps to the mediaType enum (IMAGE/VIDEO) and 'that asset' implies assetId. It never explains the assetId format or whether mediaType must match the asset's actual type, leaving gaps.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List every placement that uses an image or video') and scopes it to a single asset, which distinguishes it from the broader apple_list_placements. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
It states a clear use condition: call this 'before deleting or replacing that asset', which positions it as a safety pre-check ahead of apple_delete_asset. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating what to do with the results, so no explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.