List artifact bundles
rubrkit_list_artifact_bundlesList artifact bundles through /api/v1/artifact-bundles. Requires artifact_bundles:read for API keys.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | active |
rubrkit_list_artifact_bundlesList artifact bundles through /api/v1/artifact-bundles. Requires artifact_bundles:read for API keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | active |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the required read permission, indicating a safe operation. However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or behavior edge cases.
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, no fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value.
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?
The tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, yet the description omits parameter purpose and response format. Basic guidelines like pagination or filtering are missing, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 does not explain the limit and status parameters. Agents must infer from schema names and types, which may lead to incorrect usage without further context.
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 lists artifact bundles, specifies the endpoint, and distinguishes from siblings like read or create. It names the required permission, 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 implies usage for listing bundles but provides no guidance on when to use this versus read, or how to filter using parameters. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
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.