list_artifactsList a project's durable artifacts and each latest immutable version without fetching stored bytes. Use it to quickly review available outputs and versions for any project.
List durable project artifacts and each latest immutable version without returning stored bytes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat safety traits. It adds value by clarifying that the tool returns only metadata (latest immutable versions) and not the stored bytes, which is a critical behavioral trait not captured by annotations.
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 sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler, directly conveys the essential information, and every word earns its place.
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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action and scope. However, it omits details about pagination, ordering, filtering, or the structure of the returned list (e.g., what fields are included). An agent may need to guess at the output format, which limits completeness.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. The description does not mention 'project_id' at all, nor explain its role, format, or constraints. The schema provides a UUID pattern, but the description adds no semantic value for the parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on how to specify the project.
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 action ('List'), the resource ('durable project artifacts'), and the scope ('each latest immutable version'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'without returning stored bytes', which contrasts with tools like 'get_artifact' or 'prepare_artifact_download' that likely return bytes.
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 provides clear context on what the tool does and does not return (no bytes), implying when to use it (when you need metadata only). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for byte retrieval, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names. Still, the context is sufficient for basic usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.