rubrkit_record_outcomeRecord a production outcome event (input feature, metric, and/or label) for an artifact bundle via POST /api/v1/artifact-bundles/{artifactBundleId}/outcomes. Requires artifact_bundles:write for API keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inputHash | No | ||
| occurredAt | No | ||
| inputFeature | No | ||
| outcomeLabel | No | ||
| outcomeMetric | No | ||
| artifactBundleId | Yes | ||
| artifactVersionId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the HTTP method POST and the resource, but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, destructive, or what happens on duplicate entries. Side effects and behavior are not described.
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: the first contains the action, object, data types, and endpoint; the second adds permission info. It is front-loaded with essential information and contains no unnecessary words.
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 tool has 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, default behaviors, or constraints for most parameters, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 description only hints at three parameters (inputFeature, outcomeMetric, outcomeLabel) via 'input feature, metric, and/or label', but does not explain inputHash, occurredAt, artifactVersionId, or artifactBundleId beyond the endpoint. With 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more parameter details.
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 specifies the action 'Record' and the resource 'production outcome event for an artifact bundle', including the HTTP method and endpoint. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'create_artifact_bundle' or 'list_artifact_bundles' by targeting a specific outcome event record.
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 states the required permission ('artifact_bundles:write') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to record an outcome vs. when to create an artifact bundle. The purpose is clear enough to infer usage, but lacks explicit when/when-not context.
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.