rubrkit_add_golden_caseAdd a golden case (a real edge-case input with a confirmed-correct output) to an artifact bundle via POST /api/v1/artifact-bundles/{artifactBundleId}/golden-cases. Requires artifact_bundles:write for API keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| input | Yes | ||
| origin | No | ||
| weight | No | ||
| criteria | No | ||
| originRef | No | ||
| expectedOutput | No | ||
| artifactBundleId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions required permissions (artifact_bundles:write), but does not describe success/failure behavior, response format, side effects, or any additional constraints. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the key action. No filler words. Every sentence adds value: first explains what the tool does, second provides endpoint and permission requirement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and auth but leaves parameter details and behavior unspecified. The tool is a creation operation, yet return values and side effects are omitted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'input' and 'expectedOutput' via the phrase 'input with a confirmed-correct output', but ignores 6 other parameters (tags, origin, weight, criteria, originRef). The URL path implied artifactBundleId but no details on format or constraints beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Add', the resource 'golden case', and the context 'to an artifact bundle'. It explains what a golden case is (a real edge-case input with confirmed-correct output), distinguishing it from sibling tools like retire or list golden cases. The endpoint URL is also provided, adding specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to add a golden case to an artifact bundle, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_golden_cases or retire_golden_case. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resource-action pairs, and descriptions clarify differences like soft vs hard delete or list bundles vs list versions. However, some names are similar (e.g., delete_artifact_bundle vs hard_delete_artifact_bundle), which could cause minor confusion.
All tools follow a uniform rubrkit_verb_noun pattern with imperative verbs and snake_case, making them predictable and easy to navigate. No mixed conventions or inconsistencies.
With 30 tools, the server is comprehensive but slightly heavy for a single-purpose MCP. The tools cover multiple sub-domains (bundles, files, audits, evals, conversions, docs), which justifies the count, but consolidation could reduce complexity.
The set covers CRUD for artifact bundles, file operations, audit/eval lifecycle, and API documentation. Minor gaps include missing bundle metadata update and file deletion, but core workflows are supported.