rubrkit_run_drift_checkQueue a drift check immediately instead of waiting for the monitor's schedule, via POST /api/v1/drift-monitors/{driftMonitorId}/check. The first check on a new monitor calibrates its baseline. Costs one audit per repeat. Requires artifact_bundles:write for API keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| driftMonitorId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses that this is a queue operation, calibrates baseline on first check, costs per repeat, and requires specific permissions. It lacks explicit mention of idempotency or side effects beyond costing audits, but covers key behavioral traits.
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?
Three sentences total: first states the action and endpoint, second adds calibration detail, third covers cost and permissions. No redundancy, front-loaded with the 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?
Commendable coverage of core details, but does not address the asynchronous nature (it queues the check) or need to poll for results, despite sibling poll_job tool existing. Lacks mention of return format or response structure.
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 only parameter is driftMonitorId with no schema description (0% coverage). The description indirectly explains it via the endpoint path, but does not provide additional context like how to obtain it or its role beyond identification. Adequate but minimal.
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 tool queues a drift check immediately, distinguishing it from waiting for the schedule. It specifies the exact HTTP endpoint and action, leaving no ambiguity about the resource ('drift check on a drift monitor').
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 explains when to use this tool (immediate check instead of waiting for schedule) and mentions the first check calibrates baseline and costs an audit. It implies use when an immediate result is needed, but does not explicitly compare to siblings like read_drift_observations or list_drift_monitors.
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.