Read artifact file
rubrkit_read_artifact_fileRead the latest file metadata and content. Requires files:read for API keys.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileId | Yes | ||
| artifactBundleId | Yes |
rubrkit
by com.rubrkit
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It implies a non-destructive read but does not clarify what 'latest' means, whether content is raw or metadata, or response structure. Minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no extra words, but lacks sufficient detail to be truly useful. Could be expanded while staying concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and two UUID params, description is too sparse. Missing details on what 'latest' version means, return format, or how parameters relate. Not complete for reliable agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, and description adds no information about the two required parameters (fileId, artifactBundleId). Agent must infer meaning solely from parameter names, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it reads the latest file metadata and content, using specific verbs and resource. Distinguishes from sibling list tools like rubrkit_list_artifact_files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Only provides authentication requirement (files:read) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rubrkit_read_artifact_bundle or rubrkit_list_file_versions. Lacks usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
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.
Naming Consistency5/5
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.
Tool Count4/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.