Skip to main content
Glama

mcg_fetch_artifacts

Read-only

List a run's collected artifacts as a typed manifest: artifacts, a list of path, bytes, stage and sha256 per file, plus removed on a file the retention sweep deleted (its bytes are gone; do not fetch it) and attribution on a third-party model's file (its license notice; keep it with any copy); truncated; source. Never returns file contents; fetch one file with mcg_get_artifact.

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": {
      "run_id": "<run_id>"
    },
    "name": "mcg_fetch_artifacts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idYesThe run id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavior: it never returns file contents, marks retention-deleted files whose bytes are gone, includes license attribution for third-party model files, and may truncate results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and alternative are front-loaded, and every clause carries useful information. The description is dense and somewhat long as a single sentence, but it avoids filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, read-only manifest tool with no output schema, the description provides enough return-shape detail: artifacts and their fields, removed-file semantics, attribution, truncation, and source. No critical calling information appears missing.

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?

The only parameter is run_id, and the schema already describes it at 100% coverage. The description confirms that artifacts are scoped to a run but adds no format or selection details 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 verb and resource: list a run's collected artifacts as a typed manifest. It also names the per-file fields returned and explicitly distinguishes this inventory operation from mcg_get_artifact, which fetches file contents.

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 gives clear routing guidance: use this tool for a manifest, never for file contents, and use mcg_get_artifact to fetch one file. It also says not to fetch files marked removed because their bytes are gone.

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