Skip to main content
Glama

get_artifact

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read one file an agent has published. Pass uri as the mcp_uri field list_artifacts returned — form agentx://artifacts/{agent}/{path}. Large files are truncated and say so; use resources/read on the same uri for the full file, including binary.

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": {
      "uri": "<uri>"
    },
    "name": "get_artifact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uriYesmcp_uri field from list_artifacts, form agentx://artifacts/{agent}/{path}.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Going beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the key behavioral trait an agent would otherwise be surprised by: large files are truncated, and the response says so, with a redirect to resources/read for the full or binary content. It does not discuss access permissions on other agents' artifacts, which is the one remaining gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the parameter provenance, then the fallback behavior. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, it covers the essential contract: valid input source, truncation behavior, and the escalation path for full/binary content. Only access-control context is absent.

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 100% and the schema property description already states the mcp_uri provenance and URI form, so the description largely reinforces rather than extends it. Still, tying the parameter to the exact sibling tool's output field makes the calling workflow unambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one file an agent has published') and implicitly delimits itself from list_artifacts by dealing with a single artifact rather than a listing. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling in one read.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the `uri` value comes from (`mcp_uri` field returned by list_artifacts) and names the alternative path (resources/read) with the exact condition that selects it — large or binary files. Both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.