rubrkit_list_drift_monitorsList the drift monitors for an artifact bundle via /api/v1/artifact-bundles/{artifactBundleId}/drift-monitors. Requires artifact_bundles:read (or artifacts:pull) 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 must cover behavioral aspects. It mentions the endpoint and permissions but omits details like response format, pagination, or side effects. The tool is a read operation, but more context is needed.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no unnecessary information. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 description is incomplete for a list operation without an output schema. It does not explain what the response contains (e.g., an array of monitor objects) or mention pagination. Given no annotations, more detail is needed.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain the parameter artifactBundleId beyond its presence in the schema. It could clarify where to obtain this ID or its significance, but it does not.
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 that the tool lists drift monitors for an artifact bundle, specifying the API endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rubrkit_create_drift_monitor or rubrkit_set_drift_monitor_status.
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 required permissions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name implies listing, but no guidance is given on when to list versus other operations like creating or setting status.
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.