Generates a 15-minute presigned URL for a single artifact path, enabling temporary access to agent-generated files without sharing long-term credentials.
15-minute presigned URL for one artifact path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Agent id | |
| path | Yes | Relative path, e.g. artifacts/screenshot.png |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the single most important trait: the URL expires after 15 minutes. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether the URL is safe to share, or whether the artifact must exist first.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the expiry caveat is placed prominently. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but as a sentence it is tight and readable.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, stating that the result is a presigned URL covers the essential return contract. What is missing is workflow context: when to obtain this URL rather than fetching the blob directly, and whether the artifact must be listed first.
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% (both id and path are documented in-schema), so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'one artifact path' loosely maps to the path parameter but adds no format or relative-path nuance beyond what the schema already states.
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 names the resource (artifact path) and the return value (a URL), and the 'presigned' qualifier plus 15-minute window makes it specific. It does not differentiate from the sibling get_blob, which plausibly returns artifact content rather than a link, so an agent must infer the split.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. the artifact must already be listed via list_artifacts), and no routing versus alternatives like get_blob or list_artifacts. The agent is left to guess the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.