List uploaded media files with IDs, filenames, titles, sizes, creation dates, and public URLs for use in campaign and template HTML.
List uploaded media files with ID, filename, title, size, creation date and public URL. The URL can be used in campaign and template HTML.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, and the description's field list adds useful context about the shape of what comes back. However, it says nothing about whether results are paginated, capped, ordered, or scoped to the current user/workspace – meaningful gaps for a list operation that could return a large collection.
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?
Two compact sentences with no filler. The core capability is front-loaded, and the secondary sentence earns its place by telling the agent what the URL field is for.
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 parameters, no output schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, the definition is nearly self-sufficient, and the field enumeration partly substitutes for the missing output schema. The remaining gap is absent detail on result volume, ordering and pagination for a list tool.
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 and the schema is empty at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the mention of returned fields is value-add but does not bear on parameter semantics.
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 pairs a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('uploaded media files') and enumerates the returned fields (ID, filename, title, size, creation date, public URL), which clearly separates it from sibling mutations like upload_media_file, rename_media and delete_media_file.
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 only usage cue is 'The URL can be used in campaign and template HTML', which explains what the returned URL is good for but not when an agent should call this tool versus other lookup tools. Usage is implied rather than stated, and no exclusion or alternative is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.