Retrieve the assets assigned to the signed-in employee from the Keka dashboard to inspect company-provided equipment and track assignments.
Assets assigned to the signed-in employee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implicitly scopes results to the signed-in employee with no parameters, but never states that this is a read-only operation, whether pagination applies, or what the returned asset records contain.
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 short fragment with no wasted words and the scoping constraint front-loaded. It is efficient, though it reads as an abbreviated fragment rather than a deliberate, complete statement.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, this is the minimum viable description. An agent can call it, but it lacks any statement of read-only safety, return shape, or relationship to sibling asset tools.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and the implicit 'signed-in employee' scoping is consistent with the empty schema.
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 identifies the resource (assets) and scopes it to the signed-in employee, which separates it from the sibling get_asset_requests. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so it never explicitly says whether this lists, counts, or retrieves asset records.
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, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the closely related get_asset_requests sibling. The agent must infer the distinction between assigned assets and asset requests.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.