transloadit_list_robotsReturns a filtered list of robots with short summaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| category | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| robots | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| next_cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a filtered list of summaries, implying read-only behavior, but it does not mention pagination (limit/cursor), authentication needs, or any other side effects. This is minimally adequate for a simple list operation.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and result, achieving maximum conciseness.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks usage context, parameter behavior, and any mention of pagination or authentication. Although the output schema may cover return values, the description still fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its four parameters (limit, cursor, search, category). The description only says 'filtered list' at a high level and does not explain how any of the parameters work, what values they accept, or how they affect the result. The description fails to compensate for the empty 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 clearly states the tool returns a filtered list of robots with short summaries. The verb 'returns' and resource 'list of robots' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_templates because it specifically targets robots, not templates.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_robot_help or list_templates. It does not mention any preconditions, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: creation, status retrieval, waiting, linting, and listing robots/templates. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tools follow the same transloadit_verb_noun pattern with clear verbs like create, get, lint, list, wait. The naming is perfectly consistent.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a media processing workflow, covering assembly creation, monitoring, validation, and resource exploration without bloat.
The core assembly lifecycle (create, status, wait) is fully covered, and linting adds pre-validation. A notable gap is the lack of a cancel operation or broader assembly listing, but these are non-essential for common workflows.