PR-CY MCP

list_artifact_revisions

Получить список ревизий артефакта.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "artifact_id": "<artifact_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_artifact_revisions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`artifact_id`	Yes	Идентификатор артефакта.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`artifact`	Yes	Артефакт
`revisions`	Yes	Список ревизий артефакта

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and says nothing beyond the bare purpose: no indication of read-only semantics, ordering/pagination of revisions, or whether the returned revision identifiers feed into revert_artifact or diff_artifact.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise — brevity here costs information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description omits why an agent would list revisions (e.g., obtaining a revision id for revert_artifact/diff_artifact), leaving the call's role in the workflow unclear.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single required artifact_id documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource: retrieve a list of an artifact's revisions. It is distinguishable from list_artifacts because it clearly scopes to revisions of a single artifact, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as read_artifact, diff_artifact, or revert_artifact, and no mention of prerequisites or typical workflow context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All PR-CY MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?