Manage RunningHub project assets by inspecting or registering them, preparing tagged provider references, or explicitly uploading through the configured backend.
Inspect or register project-owned assets, prepare a tagged provider reference, or explicitly upload one through the configured backend.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roles | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| asset_id | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| work_item_id | No | ||
| relative_path | No | ||
| backend_profile_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing about the mutation actions. 'Register' and 'upload' imply writes but there is no statement about permissions, reversibility, side effects, or what 'through the configured backend' actually changes. Only the mention of a 'configured backend' adds minor context.
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 that enumerates the four actions efficiently with no filler. The only cost is slightly opaque jargon ('tagged provider reference'), but structurally it is tight and readable.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and a 7-parameter multi-action surface, the description is materially incomplete. An agent cannot determine per-action parameter requirements, side effects, or prerequisites from what is written.
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?
Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage leaves the description fully responsible, and it documents none of them directly. Only weak hints exist ('project-owned' ~ project_id, 'tagged provider reference' ~ roles, 'configured backend' ~ backend_profile_id), while asset_id, relative_path, and work_item_id are entirely unexplained. This fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 clear verbs and maps closely to the four enum values of the action parameter: 'Inspect' (inspect), 'register' (register), 'prepare' (prepare), and 'upload' (upload). The resource is stated ('project-owned assets'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like rh_upload_lora or rh_project, and 'prepare a tagged provider reference' is jargon that only loosely anchors the 'prepare' action.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions that select among the four actions, and no routing to alternatives such as rh_upload_lora. The 'explicitly upload' phrasing hints at an implicit alternate upload path but never names or explains it. Usage must be inferred entirely from the action names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.