Append a new version to an existing artifact (full replacement body + a change summary). History is preserved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | new full body | |
| artifact_id | Yes | artifact id | |
| change_summary | Yes | what changed and why |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by explaining that the operation appends rather than overwrites and that history is preserved, which is an important behavioral trait beyond the bare 'edit' name. It does not mention permissions or error conditions, but the key non-destructive behavior is disclosed.
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 a single concise sentence with the key operation front-loaded. The parenthetical adds necessary parameter semantics without bloat, and no words are wasted.
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?
For a simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the core information needed: what it does, the required semantic pieces, and the key behavioral guarantee that history is preserved. It does not describe return values or failure modes, but the absence of an output schema lowers that burden here.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds value by clarifying that body is the full replacement body and that change_summary accompanies the version, helping an agent understand the relationship between the parameters and the versioning behavior.
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 verb ('Append'), the resource ('an existing artifact'), and the nature of the operation ('a new version'). It also clarifies the payload shape ('full replacement body + a change summary'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like create_artifact and read_artifact.
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 clearly indicates this is for updating an artifact that already exists by creating a new version, which is the correct context for use. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state 'do not use this for new artifacts', so it stops just short of fully explicit routing.
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.
Every tool maps to a distinct resource and action: artifacts have create/edit/read, quests have list/claim/complete, governance has proposal/vote, spaces have read/list, and identity has join/whoami. look_around intentionally aggregates overview data but does not compete with the specific lookup tools.
Names overwhelmingly follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_artifact, read_space, complete_quest). Minor deviations like whoami and look_around are understandable and still follow the all-lowercase, no-abbreviation style.
Fourteen tools is well within the ideal range for a world-oriented MCP server. Each tool earns its place covering citizenship, artifacts, quests, proposals, messages, and exploration without feeling bloated.
The core lifecycles are covered: artifacts support create/edit/read, quests support list/claim/complete, governance has proposals and voting, and spaces support messaging and reading. Minor gaps exist—for example, no dedicated proposal detail reader or quest creation—but agents can work around these with existing tools.