Retrieve an artifact from storage.
Fetches the content of a previously saved artifact.
Args:
path: Full path of the artifact (e.g., "/project/docs/api.md")
Returns:
Artifact content or error message
Examples:
>>> await retrieve_artifact("/readme.md")
"# README\nThis is the readme content..."
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, aligning with the description's 'Retrieve' verb. The description adds return type details (content or error) and an example, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like auth or limits. With good annotations, the bar is lower, and the description adds marginal value.
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 with a one-line summary, a brief detail line, and structured Args/Returns/Examples sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter usage, and return format. The example confirms typical behavior. No gaps remain for effective usage.
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 Args section provides clear meaning for the 'path' parameter, including a full path description and an example. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by giving concrete usage guidance.
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 tool retrieves an artifact from storage, using specific verbs like 'Retrieve' and 'Fetches content'. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as 'delete_artifact' and 'list_artifacts' by its unique function.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context or references to siblings, leaving the agent without decision support.
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.