rubrkit_export_proof_reportStart an async proof report job with export storage enabled by default. Requires evals:run for API keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| evalRunId | No | ||
| auditRunId | No | ||
| sourceFileId | No | ||
| includeExport | No | ||
| rubricVersion | No | ||
| candidateFileId | No | ||
| artifactBundleId | Yes | ||
| sourceFileVersionId | No | ||
| sourceVersionNumber | No | ||
| candidateFileVersionId | No | ||
| candidateVersionNumber | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It reveals the async nature and default export storage, but does not disclose any side effects, rate limits, or what happens to existing reports. This is a moderate disclosure.
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 concise sentences, front-loading the primary action. It is not verbose, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming wordy. Overall, 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?
With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves critical gaps: parameter usage, return value, error states, and additional prerequisites. The brief mention of async and permissions does not compensate for the missing context.
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%, and the description adds no explanation for any of the 11 parameters. It only mentions a required permission, not parameter meanings. The agent has no guidance on how to fill in fields like evalRunId, artifactBundleId, etc.
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 tool starts an async proof report job with export storage enabled by default. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rubrkit_read_proof_report and rubrkit_poll_job, making the purpose 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 mentions the required permission 'evals:run', providing context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or describe when not to use, but the permission hint is useful for agent decision-making.
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.