Metis

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Metis · Software Engineer — Register Code Artifact

register_code_artifact

Save scripts, snippets, functions, or templates to the code repository along with dependencies and parameters so reusable code can be found and reproduced later.

Instructions

Save a script, snippet, reusable function or template to the Code Repository.

Use this whenever the user writes or shares code worth reusing, so it can be
found and rebuilt later. Capture as much reproducibility context as you can.

Args:
    title: Short descriptive name (e.g. "INLA BYM2 spatial model setup").
    code: The actual code.
    language: r | python | sql | stata | shell | … (lowercase).
    project_id: The project this belongs to (links it for reuse). Optional.
    kind: script | snippet | function | template.
    purpose: One line on what it does / when to use it.
    tags: Comma-separated tags (e.g. "spatial,INLA,mapping").
    file_path: Where the script lives on disk, if any.
    packages: Dependencies / environment (e.g. "INLA 24.9, sf, dplyr").
    params: Seeds, thresholds, hyperparameters used (for exact reproduction).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`code`	Yes
`kind`	No	script
`tags`	No
`title`	Yes
`params`	No
`purpose`	No
`language`	No
`packages`	No
`file_path`	No
`project_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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. It mentions 'Capture as much reproducibility context as you can' but lacks information on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the code already exists. This is insufficient for a save operation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core action and usage guidance before listing parameters. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter list is lengthy but necessary given the lack of schema descriptions.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the high parameter count (10) and zero schema description coverage, the description provides minimal coverage for each parameter. It does not explain default values, validation rules, or return value format (though an output schema exists). The description is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists each parameter with a brief semantic hint (e.g., 'Short descriptive name' for title, 'r | python | sql | ...' for language). While not exhaustive, it adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('Code Repository'). It enumerates the types of code artifacts (script, snippet, reusable function, template) and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_code_repository' which retrieves code.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear usage context: 'Use this whenever the user writes or shares code worth reusing.' It does not, however, explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, which would be helpful for agents deciding between this and other tools.

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

Deploy Server