Register a content-addressed artifact in a separate provenance DAG. Parent hashes may be registered artifacts or external content roots. Idempotent on artifact_id; does not consume a genesis index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| relation | No | derived_from | |
| artifact_id | Yes | ||
| artifact_hash | Yes | ||
| parent_hashes | No | ||
| metadata_digest | No | ||
| producer_agent_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses idempotency on artifact_id and that it does not consume a genesis index, which adds value beyond the schema. With no annotations, it partially covers transparency but misses safety or authorization details.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no wasted 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 6 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is somewhat incomplete for parameter semantics and usage context, though it covers the core purpose.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain each parameter. It only indirectly addresses parent_hashes and artifact_id, leaving relation, metadata_digest, and others unexplained.
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?
Clearly states the tool registers a content-addressed artifact in a separate provenance DAG, distinguishing it from retrieval or verification tools like get_artifact or verify_artifact. The verb 'register' and resource 'artifact' are specific.
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?
Implies use for registering artifacts in a separate provenance DAG, and differentiates from register_genesis by stating it does not consume a genesis index. However, no explicit when-to-use vs get_artifact or list_artifacts is provided.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: describing, fetching, listing, registering, recalling, or verifying. No two tools overlap in purpose.
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.
11 tools cover the agent provenance domain thoroughly without redundancy. The count is well-balanced for managing genesis, artifacts, and verification.
The tool surface covers creation, retrieval, listing, verification, and recall for both agents and artifacts. No obvious gaps for an immutable provenance system.