rubrkit_apply_audit_rewriteApply a completed audit's AI rewrite to the bundle files (a new version per changed file). Requires audits:run for API keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auditRunId | Yes | ||
| artifactBundleId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the mutation effect ('a new version per changed file') and mentions authorization scope. However, it omits details on reversibility, idempotency, or rate limits. The key behavioral trait is communicated but not comprehensively.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first states the primary purpose and key detail (new versions), the second adds a permission requirement. No redundancy, front-loaded, and efficient.
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 tool's mutation nature, the description covers the basic effect and a prerequisite. However, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., audit must be complete), output or side effects beyond version creation, and how to obtain IDs. The explanation is sufficient for a familiar agent but incomplete for a new one.
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%, yet the description provides no explanation of the two required parameters (auditRunId, artifactBundleId). It gives no context on how to obtain them or their role, forcing the agent to infer from the tool name alone.
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 explicitly states the action ('Apply') and the resource ('a completed audit's AI rewrite to the bundle files'), with additional detail about creating new versions per changed file. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rubrkit_start_audit or rubrkit_read_audit.
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 includes a prerequisite ('Requires audits:run for API keys'), which is helpful. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provide context about the required state of the audit (e.g., 'after completion'). The guidance is minimal.
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.