Lists images in a Flow project library so you can filter uploads or generated images, reuse uploads without re-uploading, and re-download generated images by ID.
List the images in the Flow project library: uploads (reusable via reference_library_names without re-uploading) and generated images (re-downloadable by id with download_image).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| only | No | Filter: "uploaded" (reference uploads), "generated", or "all". | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral load; "List" implies a safe read, which is the main trait disclosed. It does not mention pagination, result ordering, permissions, or size limits — meaningful gaps for a library listing that could be large.
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 sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource before parenthetical clarifications of each category. Nothing is repeated or padded.
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 one-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how each category is consumed downstream. The remaining gap is return-shape and pagination behavior, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces the meaning of the "uploaded" and "generated" categories by explaining what each contains, but adds no syntax or edge-case detail.
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?
States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("images in the Flow project library") and then enumerates the two content categories returned: uploads and generated images. It also implicitly differentiates from the download_image sibling by noting generated images are re-downloadable there rather than here.
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?
Gives concrete downstream context for the results — uploads can be reused via reference_library_names without re-uploading, generated images can be fetched with download_image by id. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance, but the usage intent is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.