list_artifacts
List artifacts, optionally filtered by producer agent.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| producer_agent_id | No |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
agent-provenance
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only mentions listing and filtering. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or any side effects. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence, front-loading the action. It is efficient but could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it omits basic contextual information like whether the list is ordered, paginated, or includes full artifact objects. It is adequate for a simple list but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description itself adds meaning to the producer_agent_id parameter by stating it is an optional filter. This partially compensates, but the description could elaborate on the parameter's format or behavior.
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 verb 'list' and resource 'artifacts', with an optional filter by producer_agent_id, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_artifact (singular) and lineage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_artifact or lineage. There are no explicit context cues about when the optional filter is beneficial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: describing, fetching, listing, registering, recalling, or verifying. No two tools overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_artifact, register_genesis, list_records), with only 'lineage' and 'recall' being single-word verbs but still consistent in style.
Tool Count5/5
11 tools cover the agent provenance domain thoroughly without redundancy. The count is well-balanced for managing genesis, artifacts, and verification.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers creation, retrieval, listing, verification, and recall for both agents and artifacts. No obvious gaps for an immutable provenance system.