Skip to main content
Glama

SendIt

by io.github.Shree-git

List Media Assets

list_media_assets
Read-onlyIdempotent

List media library assets with filtering by collection, type, tags, search, and pagination.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoOptional broad media kind filter.
tagsNoOptional tag filter. Assets matching any supplied tag may be returned.
limitNoMaximum number of results to return.
cursorNoOpaque pagination cursor from a previous response.
searchNoOptional filename search query.
team_idNoTeam ID to operate in team scope. Get available teams with list_teams. If omitted, uses personal scope.
mimeTypeNoOptional exact MIME type filter such as image/png or video/mp4.
collectionNoOptional collection name filter.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that pagination is supported, which is a behavioral detail but not previously disclosed. It does not describe response shape or potential side effects, though none are expected given the annotations.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and key features without any wasted words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the verb 'List' and the resource 'media library assets'.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only list tool with comprehensive annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the essential action and filtering capabilities. However, it does not clarify the relationship to the sibling 'list_library' tool, which could cause selection confusion, and it omits any mention of team scope (though team_id is documented in the schema).

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description's mention of filtering by collection, type, tags, search, and pagination adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool lists media library assets and enumerates key filtering dimensions (collection, type, tags, search, pagination). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'list_library', leaving some ambiguity about which tool to use for general library listing.

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 usage when needing filtered media assets, but it provides no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance. There is no mention of when not to use this tool or a pointer to a sibling like list_library, so the agent must infer context.

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

All SendIt toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 148 tools, there is significant overlap. For example, generate_content, publish_ai, generate_post_bundle, and request_project_content all generate content; get_analytics, get_unified_analytics, get_post_analytics, get_ad_performance, and get_unified_ad_report all fetch performance metrics; and list_inbox vs list_conversations blur comment and conversation management. Descriptions help, but boundaries between tools are often unclear.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_teams, create_goal, delete_post), but there are notable deviations: create_library_item vs save_to_library, publish_content vs publish_ai, schedule_content vs schedule_content_advanced, and connect_platform vs connect_connector. Mixed prefixes like 'autopilot_', 'check_', and 'get_' are fine, but overlapping verbs and a hyphen in 'connect_linkedin-page' reduce consistency.

Tool Count1/5

148 tools is extreme for any server. Even for a broad social media management platform, this is far beyond what an agent can effectively navigate. The count is unwieldy and suggests the surface should be split into multiple focused servers (publishing, analytics, connectors, workflows, etc.).

Completeness3/5

The core social publishing workflow is well covered (create, schedule, publish, edit, delete, retry), and there are extensive features for analytics, workflows, connectors, and AI agents. However, some resources have CRUD gaps: no update/delete for brand voices, no delete_project, no update/delete for Product Hunt goals, and no explicit get_workflow. These are workable but notable omissions.

Resources