rubrkit_update_artifact_fileWrite a new editable version for a file. Requires files:write for API keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileId | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| message | No | ||
| mediaType | No | ||
| artifactBundleId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a write operation and a permission requirement, but lacks details on idempotency, side effects (e.g., does it overwrite the previous version?), failure modes, or the nature of 'editable version.' For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
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 concise at two sentences, efficiently communicating the core action and a permission requirement. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, especially given the absence of schema descriptions. It is well-front-loaded but could be expanded without becoming verbose.
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 five parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the 'message' and 'mediaType' fields, nor does it specify acceptable content formats. The agent has insufficient context to correctly invoke the tool without external knowledge.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its parameters, yet the description adds no explanations for any of the five parameters (fileId, content, message, mediaType, artifactBundleId). The description fails to clarify the role of 'message' or 'mediaType', leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill the content field.
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 states the action is to 'write a new editable version for a file', which clearly indicates updating an existing file's content. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling rubrkit_upload_artifact_files (which likely creates new files) or rubrkit_restore_file_version (which restores a previous version), leaving ambiguity about when to use this tool over alternatives.
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 only usage guidance is the permission requirement 'Requires files:write for API keys.' There is no mention of when to use this tool versus siblings like rubrkit_upload_artifact_files or rubrkit_restore_file_version, nor any exclusion criteria or prerequisites (e.g., that the file must already exist in the bundle).
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.