Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Super Artifacts

by app.superartifacts
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Read or write a collection's entries

super_entries

Entries of a workspace content collection (a model defined in the catalog), not rows an artifact collected. With values: create one entry (an object) or up to 50 (an array, one outcome per row); values are coerced to declared types, undeclared fields are refused by name, and nothing existing is updated or deleted. Without: read one page, filtered and sorted in the database; references resolve to labels, sensitive fields read as answered-or-not. Rows visitors submitted are super_data.

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": {
      "collection": "<collection>"
    },
    "name": "super_entries"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
sortNoField or system column. Default _created_at.
limitNo
filterNoANDed 'field op value' clauses: 'reps >= 5', 'day in mon,tue', 'note is set'. Ops: = != > >= < <= contains starts has in, is set, is empty. System: _created_at _updated_at _status _author.
searchNoCase-insensitive, over text fields.
statusNoWritten entries. Default published.
valuesNoKeyed by field name. An array writes a batch.
directionNo
workspaceNoWorkspace handle. Omit for your own.
collectionYesContent collection key (a content model), not a gallery label.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / collection / description
      Previous value: -"Collection key."New value: +"Content collection key (a content model), not a gallery label."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses batch size limits, type coercion, rejection of undeclared fields, and the important fact that existing entries are not updated or deleted. It also explains read behavior such as database-side filtering/sorting, reference label resolution, and sensitive-field handling.

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 compact and front-loaded: the collection-vs-artifact distinction comes first, followed by write mode, read mode, and the alternative tool. Every clause contributes operational information.

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/write tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical modes, safety behavior, and alternative sibling well. Some return-shape and pagination detail is omitted, but the core invocation information is present.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is already 70%, and the description adds meaningful semantics for the most consequential parameter: `values` can be one object or an array of up to 50, values are coerced, and undeclared fields are refused by name. It adds less detail for pagination, direction, and sorting, but still improves understanding beyond the schema.

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 states a specific resource—entries of a workspace content collection—and clearly distinguishes it from artifact-collected rows and from visitor-submitted data routed to super_data. It also spells out the two operating modes: write when `values` is supplied, read otherwise.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says to use this tool with `values` for creation and without `values` for reading, and it names super_data as the sibling for visitor-submitted rows. That gives the agent a clear decision rule rather than merely implying one.

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

All Super Artifacts toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources