rubrkit_hard_delete_artifact_bundlePermanently delete an archived artifact bundle and all of its files, versions, and run history through DELETE /api/v1/artifact-bundles/{artifactBundleId}/permanent. This is irreversible and only works on bundles that are already archived. Requires artifact_bundles:write for API keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artifactBundleId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states irreversibility, that it affects all associated files, versions, and run history, and the prerequisite that the bundle must be archived. This fully discloses the destructive nature and constraints.
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 sentences: first explains the action and scope, second adds prerequisites and permissions. No unnecessary words. Efficient and front-loaded.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, permanence, prerequisites, and permissions. It does not mention error scenarios or return values, but for a simple destructive operation with a clear purpose, this is nearly complete.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must add value. It mentions the URL pattern with {artifactBundleId} but does not explicitly describe the parameter's format (UUID) or its meaning beyond the path. While the path implies the ID, a direct statement would be clearer. Score 3 because it provides some context but not full compensation for lack of schema description.
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 permanently deletes an archived artifact bundle including all files, versions, and run history. The verb 'permanently delete' combined with the resource 'artifact bundle' precisely defines the action. It distinguishes from the sibling 'rubrkit_delete_artifact_bundle' which likely performs soft delete.
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 specifies that the tool only works on bundles already archived and requires the 'artifact_bundles:write' permission. It does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context of permanence implies a soft delete alternative exists.
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.