Artifacta MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: upload (store_artifact vs request_upload_url/complete_upload), download (get_artifact_download_url vs get_artifact for metadata), listing (list_artifacts vs list_sessions), and identity (whoami). No overlaps.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., complete_upload, get_artifact, list_artifacts, store_artifact). Even 'whoami' fits as a verb phrase.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for an artifact management server. Each tool covers a necessary operation without bloat.
Completeness4/5
Core lifecycle operations (upload, download, list, retrieve metadata) are covered, but missing update and delete tools, which is a minor gap.
Average 4.4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 38 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 15, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true; description adds that sessions are not first-class and exist only as long as artifacts reference them, and details the returned fields. This adds behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with clear, front-loaded information. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
While purpose is clear, the description omits usage guidance for parameters like time range and pagination. For a list tool with four parameters and no output schema, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description does not explain any of the four parameters (created_after, created_before, limit, cursor). Description must compensate for low coverage but fails to do so.
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 clearly states it lists session IDs synthesized from artifacts with ordering and entry details. It is specific but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_artifacts.
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 tool versus alternatives. The description implies context (artifacts) but provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false. Description adds important context about idempotency and retry handling, but could detail more edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two focused paragraphs: purpose/alternative and retry warning. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Explains return values and retry safety, but missing explicit parameter explanations for metadata and ttl given no output schema.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, description implies usage of parameters but does not explain each parameter individually (e.g., metadata, ttl). Provides enough for basic understanding but not full detail.
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?
Specifically describes reserving a presigned R2 PUT URL for files too large for store_artifact (over 500 MB up to 5 GB). Distinguishes from sibling tool clearly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (large files), when not to (most should use store_artifact), and warns about retry safety with alternative detection approach.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description explains server verifies blob, computes content hash, transitions state from pending to active, increments tenant usage, idempotency, and error condition. Annotations only indicate not read-only, so description adds substantial behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four concise sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, steps, idempotency, error handling. No wasted words, front-loaded with main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple tool (1 param, no output schema), description covers purpose, behavior, state transitions, error case, and retry guidance. Agent can confidently invoke and handle responses.
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?
Single parameter artifact_id has 0% schema description coverage. Description uses artifact_id in error message but does not explain its origin (e.g., from request_upload_url) or nuance. Schema pattern provides format, but description adds minimal semantic value beyond context.
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?
Description states the tool 'Finalize an artifact previously reserved via request_upload_url after the bytes have been PUT to the presigned URL'. It clearly identifies the verb (finalize), resource (artifact), and prerequisite step, distinguishing it from the sibling tool request_upload_url.
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?
Provides explicit when to use (after PUT) and when not (before PUT completes, returns upload_not_found; wait and retry). Also mentions idempotency on already-active artifacts. Lacks direct comparison to store_artifact but still gives clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the URL is short-lived (1 hour) and from Cloudflare R2. No contradictions. Additional context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with core function. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage guidance, output nature (presigned URL, 1 hour), and alternative. Complete and self-contained.
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?
Only one parameter `artifact_id` with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter format or source beyond what the schema regex provides. However, the parameter is simple and its purpose is implied by the tool's function.
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 generates a presigned URL for downloading artifact bytes from Cloudflare R2 with a 1-hour expiry. It distinguishes from the sibling tool `create_download_link` which is for sharing with humans.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this when the agent itself needs to consume the file. For sharing with humans, use `create_download_link` instead.' Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read operation by stating 'List artifacts'. It discloses behavioral traits like default ordering ('newest first') and pagination via 'next_cursor', which go beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists filters, and ends with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all filter options and pagination. It mentions returning a 'page of artifact records' and a 'next_cursor', which is sufficient. Minor gap: no detail on the structure of each artifact record, but the tool is likely used with other tools that provide that context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 11%, but the description compensates by explaining all filter parameters: session_id, agent_id, filename, content_type, created_after/before, and metadata key-value pairs. It also notes that multi-key metadata requires Pro, adding semantic value beyond the 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 action ('List artifacts'), the resource ('owned by the calling tenant'), and the default ordering ('newest first'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_artifact (single artifact) and store_artifact (write operation).
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 explicit context: 'Use this to discover what an agent or pipeline produced when you only know a session or agent ID.' It mentions supported filters and pagination but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for single artifact retrieval).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true. The description adds 'Free of side effects and quota-cheap', which goes beyond annotations by disclosing quota cost and confirming no side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with return values, then usage guidance, then behavioral note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return values, usage context, side effects, and quota implications. For a zero-parameter info tool, it is complete.
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?
Input schema has 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters, baseline is 4; description does not need to add param info.
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 it returns 'calling tenant's identity, plan tier, current usage counters, and rate limits', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes well from sibling tools which handle uploads, artifacts, and sessions.
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?
Explicit usage guidance: 'Use this once at the start of an agent run to confirm authentication and to size subsequent operations against quota.' No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which matches the description. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as returning specific error codes for unknown IDs, soft-deleted artifacts, and expired artifacts (HTTP 410).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, read-only, no output schema needed), the description fully covers the behavior, return fields, and error cases.
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 schema has one parameter artifact_id with a regex pattern, which is self-explanatory. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the parameter name and schema imply, but it's sufficient for the simple parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description could elaborate, but the param is well-defined.
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 it fetches metadata for a single artifact by ID, listing specific metadata fields (filename, content type, size, etc.). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_artifact_download_url which returns file bytes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly explains what the tool does and what it does NOT do (return file bytes), directing users to call get_artifact_download_url for that. It also lists specific error conditions (artifact_not_found, artifact_already_deleted, artifact_expired), providing clear guidance on expected behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), description details idempotency guarantees, return value (full artifact record with artifact_id and content_hash), tagging behavior, and path confinement rules including sensitive locations refused. No contradiction with annotations.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, then modes, limits, alternatives, return info, constraints, and idempotency. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose; could be more concise but effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value (full artifact record with artifact_id and content_hash). It covers all essential aspects: input modes, size limits, path constraints, idempotency, tagging, and error conditions. Complete for an upload tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 44% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying size limits, streaming behavior, path restrictions, idempotency mechanics, and tagging. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema, especially for content, path, and idempotency_key.
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 'Upload a file as a new artifact in a single call' and specifies two distinct input modes (base64 content or local path). It distinguishes from siblings like list_artifacts and get_artifact by being the upload tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: recommends request_upload_url for files >500 MB, describes path allow-list constraints, and explains idempotency_key usage for crash-safe retries. Also notes conditions that cause errors (file_too_large, invalid_request).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![artifacta-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SagaPeak/artifacta-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SagaPeak/artifacta-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![artifacta-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SagaPeak/artifacta-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SagaPeak/artifacta-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SagaPeak/artifacta-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server