assetcache-mcp

by v0o0v

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

run_saved_search

Run a saved search to fetch matching assets, applying optional field overrides for customized results.

Instructions

저장된 검색을 실행해 find_asset 결과를 반환한다 (overrides 로 일부 필드 덮어쓰기 가능).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "req": "<req>"
    },
    "name": "run_saved_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`req`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`results`	Yes
`query_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.7Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the main behavior (returns find_asset results) and the ability to override fields, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens with invalid saved search names, or pagination/error behavior. This is moderate disclosure but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and output, with the override capability in parentheses. No unnecessary words; ideal for quick understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, so the description is not required to detail return values. However, it omits context around optional parameters like 'project_id', error handling, and when overrides should be used. Given the lack of annotations, the description leaves some gaps, but is adequate for basic usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'overrides' parameter by explaining it can overwrite some fields, but it does not explain 'name' or 'project_id', nor the nested 'req' structure. The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('실행해' meaning execute/run) and the resource ('저장된 검색' saved search), and specifies the output type (find_asset results). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_search, list_saved_searches, or find_asset.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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 want to execute a saved search and retrieve find_asset results. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.