Retrieve the approval record and provenance details for any asset version using its ID and version number. Confirm the approval history and trace the origin of art assets for QA and compliance.
Get version provenance including approval record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | Yes | Version number | |
| asset_id | Yes | Asset identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reports that the result includes an approval record, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the provenance contains, whether any permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. This is thin for a tool with no structured annotation support.
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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the operation ('Get version provenance') and adds the key output qualifier ('including approval record'), earning 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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should explain more about what 'provenance' includes and what the caller can expect. It does not specify return structure, limitations, or how this relates to the surrounding approval and history tools, leaving a fairly large gap for an agent selecting among many siblings.
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%, with both parameters adequately described in the input schema ('Asset identifier' and 'Version number'). The tool description itself adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get version provenance including approval record.' It clearly communicates that the tool retrieves provenance for a specific asset version, and the approval-record qualifier helps distinguish it from generic history or inspection tools. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate against siblings like art.asset.history or art.asset.inspect_version.
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 alternatives such as art.asset.history or art.asset.approval.inspect. The description implies a read operation for version provenance but gives no conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.