Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIR MCP Server

AIR MCP Server

by VericyIO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get artifact text

air_get_artifact_text
Read-only

Retrieve extracted plain text from a specified artifact using its project PID and artifact PID to review or process evidence content.

Instructions

Get extracted plain text for an artifact. Requires projects:read.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectPid": "<projectPid>",
      "artifactPid": "<artifactPid>"
    },
    "name": "air_get_artifact_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPidYes
artifactPidYesArtifact pid (artf_*)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the authorization scope (projects:read) and implies the text must already be extracted, which is useful beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about size limits, truncation, or behavior when extraction has not completed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and the reading order is correct.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials are mostly present, but the definition is thin: it doesn't clarify the relationship between projectPid and artifactPid, what 'extracted' implies about timing/dependencies, or what the returned text looks like.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 50%: artifactPid is documented as artf_* in the schema, but projectPid has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieving the extracted plain text of an artifact. It is distinguishable from siblings like air_get_document_download_url (raw file) and air_list_artifacts (enumeration), though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The statement 'Requires projects:read' gives a prerequisite, which implies the calling context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against the download-URL sibling. Usage is only weakly implied.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools