Save a learning artifact (HTML, Markdown, chart, code, report) for a learner, including content or URI, metadata, and session context to support progress tracking.
Save a learning artefact (HTML, Markdown, chart, code, report...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | ||
| version | No | 1 | |
| metadata | No | ||
| learner_id | Yes | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| path_or_uri | No | ||
| artifact_type | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only discloses that an artifact is persisted. It does not describe versioning or overwrite behavior, the role of learner_id/session_id, side effects, or whether content must be supplied inline versus via path_or_uri.
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 tightly worded sentence with no filler, and the useful examples are front-loaded. It is easy to parse, though brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail.
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?
This is an 8-parameter write tool with 2 required fields, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage. A one-line description is not enough for an agent to reliably determine required values, parameter formats, or behavioral semantics, so the definition is materially incomplete.
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 0%, and the description only minimally compensates by giving example values for artifact_type. The required learner_id, content, version, metadata, path_or_uri, request_id, and session_id are left unexplained, leaving significant ambiguity about how the artifact should actually be provided.
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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Save a learning artefact', and gives concrete examples like HTML, Markdown, chart, code, and report. This communicates the core operation clearly and distinguishes it from sibling save_* tools. It does not clarify whether saving creates a new artifact or updates/versions an existing one, but the basic purpose is unambiguous.
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 instead of list_artifacts, get_artifact, or other save_* siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The only usage signal is the generic operation stated in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.