rubrkit_create_artifact_bundleCreate an artifact bundle through /api/v1/artifact-bundles. Requires artifact_bundles:write for API keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| settings | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| customRubric | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it creates a bundle and the required permission, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, return values, or any constraints beyond the schema. For a creation 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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core action and permission requirement. Every word adds value without redundancy.
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 has 4 parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain the purpose of 'settings' or 'customRubric', nor does it describe the response. Sibling tools are listed but not differentiated.
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%, meaning the description adds no information about the 4 parameters (name, settings, description, customRubric). While the schema provides type and constraints, the description does not explain what these parameters mean or how to use them effectively.
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 'create' and the resource 'artifact bundle', along with the specific API endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which target different resources like drift monitors or golden cases. The action is unambiguous.
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 the tool is for creating artifact bundles and mentions the required permission 'artifact_bundles:write', which provides context for API key usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, though no direct alternative exists for creating artifact bundles among siblings.
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.