Skip to main content
Glama

artifact_history

Read-only

List the revisions of an artifact (rev_id, parent, seq, time, author, pinned) and its heads. conflict=true means divergent heads to merge.

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": {
      "artifact_id": "<artifact_id>"
    },
    "name": "artifact_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
artifact_idYesPointer memory id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it names the returned revision fields and explains that conflict=true indicates divergent heads requiring merge. It does not mention ordering, limits, or pagination.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and returned fields are front-loaded, followed by the conflict flag semantics. Every phrase contributes 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?

Without an output schema, the description does useful work by enumerating return fields and explaining the conflict flag. For a read-only history tool with one fully documented parameter, that is nearly complete. Minor gaps remain around revision ordering, pagination, and what 'heads' means operationally.

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% for the single artifact_id parameter, and the schema already explains it as a 'Pointer memory id.' The description does not add syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond saying the history belongs to an artifact. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries parameter meaning.

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 has a clear verb-resource pair: 'List the revisions of an artifact' plus its heads. It specifies the returned revision fields, which makes the tool's scope concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like artifact_read, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: inspect an artifact's revision history and heads. The description never states when to choose this over artifact_read or other artifact siblings, nor any exclusions. A user must infer the selection criteria from the tool name and purpose.

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.

Resources