agentView

Get Agent Artifact

get_agent_artifact

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns an agent-onboarding artifact shipped with a store template: system prompt, Agent Skills SKILL.md or MCP-config snippet. Pass slug for the RAW template artifact (before install, {{slot:...}} placeholders intact) or display_id for the display-bound artifact with placeholders resolved against installed slots (ready to save, e.g. into ~/.claude/skills/). Discover keys via get_store_template_details (agentArtifacts array). Template mode needs no auth; display mode requires content scope and display ownership.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	Yes	Artifact key, e.g. 'bot-system-prompt', 'agent-skill', 'mcp-config'.
`slug`	No	Template slug for the raw artifact. Provide slug OR display_id.
`display_id`	No	Display profile ID for the placeholder-resolved artifact. If both slug and display_id are given, display_id wins (substituted body).
`access_token`	No	Optional bearer token; prefer session_request_id.
`session_request_id`	No	Session handle from create_auth_session; pass it on every authenticated call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	No
`kind`	No
`slug`	No
`title`	No
`content`	No
`displayId`	No
`unresolvedPlaceholders`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: template mode needs no authentication, display mode requires specific auth scopes, and placeholder resolution behavior. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (three well-structured sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (5 params, output schema exists), the description covers all critical aspects: what the tool returns, the two modes, authentication requirements, and how to discover valid keys. Complete enough for correct agent invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the precedence of display_id over slug, the auth context for access_token vs session_request_id, and the purpose of each parameter beyond schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns an agent-onboarding artifact (system prompt, SKILL.md, or MCP-config snippet). It distinguishes between two modes: raw template (slug) and placeholder-resolved (display_id), and explains how to discover artifact keys via get_store_template_details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use slug (template mode, no auth) versus display_id (display mode, requires auth and ownership). It also mentions the sibling get_store_template_details for key discovery. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All agentView tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map cleanly to distinct resource-action pairs (displays, organizations, assets, data slots, store templates, auth). A few clusters like the get_store_template_* family and the auth/session tools could still confuse an agent, but their descriptions are explicit enough to separate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant pattern is consistent verb_noun snake_case (list_*, get_*, create_*, delete_*, send_*, set_*, manage_*). Deviations like fetch, search, authenticate, logout, and pair_by_code are understandable but break the otherwise uniform naming scheme.

Tool Count1/5

With 57 tools this server far exceeds the 50+ threshold, creating an extreme tool-set size for an MCP server. Even though the underlying platform is feature-rich, the sheer number of tools heavily taxes context and selection.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers display, organization, asset, data slot, store template, auth, API key, and licensing lifecycles in impressive depth. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete operation for display categories and no reboot/power control for displays.

Resources

Need Help?