rubrkit_read_validity_driftCorrelate rubric scores against recorded outcome metrics for an artifact bundle to check whether the rubric is still predictive via GET /api/v1/artifact-bundles/{artifactBundleId}/drift/validity. 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 provided. The description adds auth requirements and indicates it is a read operation (GET), but lacks details on error behavior, pagination, or rate limits. Partial behavioral context.
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, no wasted words. First sentence packs purpose and endpoint; second adds auth requirements. 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?
No output schema, so description should explain return values; it does not. Also lacks guidance on obtaining artifactBundleId. Not fully complete for agent use, especially among many drift siblings.
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% with one parameter. The description mentions artifactBundleId implicitly in the URL but adds no meaning beyond the schema (e.g., how to obtain the ID or valid format). Should compensate more.
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 verb 'correlate' and 'check', the resource 'validity drift of an artifact bundle', and distinguishes from siblings like read_drift_observations and read_input_drift by specifying 'validity'.
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 gives context via the HTTP method and path but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like read_drift_observations or read_input_drift. No when-not or alternative guidance provided.
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.