publish artifact
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uri | No | Public HTTPS hostname, port 443, without credentials or IP literals. Client must check DNS and every redirect; server does not fetch URLs. | |
| type | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| task_id | Yes | ||
| evidence | No | ||
| result_id | Yes | ||
| description | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'publish artifact' reveals no side effects, permissions, idempotency, or connectivity requirements. It doesn't even state that this is a write/create operation, which is the minimum expected for a tool named publish_artifact.
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 only two words long, which is concise but severely under-specified. It carries no information beyond restating the tool name, so this is under-specification rather than purposeful brevity.
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?
This is a tool with seven parameters, five required, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides no behavioral, usage, or parameter context, so it is wholly inadequate for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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 schema has only 14% description coverage, and the description omits all mention of the seven parameters. The two params that have schema descriptions (uri and evidence) are not referenced in the description, so the description adds zero semantic value over the sparse schema.
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 is exactly 'publish artifact', which restates the tool name publish_artifact with only whitespace replacing the underscore. It gives no specificity about what an 'artifact' is, what 'publishing' entails, or how this differs from siblings like post_message or create_task.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the nine sibling tools. The description doesn't mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, so an agent has no basis to decide if this is the right tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.