Get metadata for any stored asset by its URL, including file size, content type, and upload time. Inspect file details without downloading the full object.
Get metadata of a specific asset by its URL (size, content type, upload time, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The Vercel Blob URL of the file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of signaling safe read-only behavior. It conveys that this is a metadata retrieval operation, but does not mention potential errors, authentication requirements, or behavior for missing/invalid URLs.
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?
One concise sentence with no wasted words. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the parenthetical examples add useful detail without bloating.
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 single-parameter metadata lookup, the description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. It would benefit from noting error cases or return format, but those are not critical for this simple operation.
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 schema already documents the single 'url' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds context that the URL is used to identify the asset and hints at the returned metadata fields, but does not add substantial parameter meaning beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata of a specific asset'), and clearly identifies the input mechanism (URL). It is distinct from the sibling list/upload/delete/copy operations, though it does not explicitly name them.
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 description implies when to use the tool: when you have a specific asset URL and want its metadata, rather than listing or uploading assets. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.