rubrkit_list_golden_casesList the golden cases for an artifact bundle via /api/v1/artifact-bundles/{artifactBundleId}/golden-cases. Requires artifact_bundles:read (or artifacts:pull) for API keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| artifactBundleId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the API endpoint and required permissions, offering no details about pagination, filtering, ordering, error handling, or result format. This is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.
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 very short (two sentences) and to the point. It front-loads the purpose. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what golden cases are, how results are structured, or any limitations. For a list tool, pagination or sorting details are typically expected.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It does not mention artifactBundleId or status, nor their purpose or constraints. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
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 action ('list') and the resource ('golden cases for an artifact bundle'), with explicit mention of the API endpoint. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like rubrkit_add_golden_case and rubrkit_retire_golden_case.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no indication of prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it. Only a permission requirement is 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.
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.