Bisque Presentations

Start a comment thread on an Artifact

create_artifact_thread

Leave a new comment thread on one of your Artifacts, as the agent. Without an anchor the thread is a general comment on the page. The thread is activated from the start, so you can reply to it and resolve it later. Mention a person with @Name using ids from the Artifact's mentionables.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Markdown subset: bold, italic, code, links, lists.
`anchor`	No	Optional pin. { kind: "page", slideId, slideIndex, timeSec } for a slide or time; { kind: "element", selector, xFrac, yFrac, snapshot: { tag, text }, slideId, slideIndex, cueTarget, timeSec } for an element; { kind: "text", quote, prefix, suffix, selector, slideId, slideIndex } for a passage.
`artifact_id`	Yes	The Artifact id (art_…).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`anchor`	Yes	Where the thread is pinned: kind element (selector, snapshot, slide), text (quote), or page.
`status`	Yes
`preview`	Yes
`mentions`	No
`messages`	Yes
`thread_id`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`created_by`	Yes	Who wrote it: { kind: "user", uid, name, handle, avatarUrl } or { kind: "agent", principal, name, via }.
`updated_at`	No
`version_id`	No
`artifact_id`	Yes
`resolved_at`	No
`participants`	No
`message_count`	Yes
`version_number`	Yes
`agent_activated`	Yes	True once someone mentioned the agent; only then may the agent reply or resolve.
`last_message_at`	Yes
`root_message_id`	No

Schema Changelog

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

AddedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, which simply mark the operation as non-read-only and non-idempotent, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the comment is made 'as the agent', an unanchored thread becomes a general page comment, and the thread is immediately active. It also documents mention syntax, improving transparency about how the tool behaves.

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?

Three concise sentences each convey distinct useful information: the core action, the anchor behavior, and the thread lifecycle plus mention syntax. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 tool with nested anchor parameters and an output schema, the description is notably complete: it explains the main behavioral variants and the required body format. It could have explicitly listed which sibling tools handle replying or resolving, but those are already evident from the sibling names and the description's lifecycle note.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters at 100%, providing a strong baseline. The description adds value by clarifying that omitting the anchor produces a general page comment and by giving explicit mention format instructions for the body parameter. This goes beyond the schema text without needing to repeat nested anchor details.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Leave a new comment thread on one of your Artifacts.' It also differentiates from siblings by emphasizing this is a new thread and by describing behaviors such as being 'activated from the start' and being reply/resolvable later.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly indicates the general use case and key decision points, such as whether an anchor is provided, and notes that the thread can later be replied to or resolved. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like reply_to_artifact_thread or resolve_artifact_thread as the alternatives for those later actions, so the guidance stops short of fully explicit routing.

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

All Bisque Presentations tools Inspect

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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped into clear resource families (artifacts, artifact threads, presentations, channels) and descriptions explicitly redirect between create_artifact and create_presentation. The main potential confusion is create_presentation vs publish_narrated_presentation, since both produce presentations but differ in narration source; the descriptions do clarify this.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use snake_case verb_noun naming with consistent families like get_artifact, get_artifact_thread, and get_presentation_spec. publish_narrated_presentation is longer but still follows the verb_noun pattern, and there are no mixed casing styles or erratic naming conventions.

Tool Count4/5

19 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the count is justified by four clear subdomains: artifacts, artifact threads, presentations, and channels. No tools are redundant, though the set is large enough to feel slightly heavy.

Completeness4/5

Artifacts have full CRUD plus sharing, and threads have create/read/list/reply/resolve. Presentations cover authoring spec, creation/publishing, status, analytics, and reading context, but there is no delete or explicit update endpoint for presentations and no exposed way to fetch mentionables; these are workable gaps rather than fatal ones.

Resources

Need Help?