Skip to main content
Glama

artifact_inspect

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read an immutable artifact by project, id, and revision to retrieve its metadata, summary, file list, and checks for read-only subsurface model inspection.

Instructions

Read one immutable artifact {id, revision}: metadata, summary, file list and checks. Read-only; ids/revisions come from project_inspect or earlier tool results.

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": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "artifact_inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYesTool arguments object (all fields documented; Z is positive upward).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description restates 'Read-only' plus adds that artifacts are immutable and what the payload contains. Since there is no output schema, naming the returned sections is real added information; it stops short of describing structure or size of those results.

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, zero filler, with the resource and return contents front-loaded before the provenance note. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

For a single nested parameter with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description covers purpose, semantics, provenance of ids, and the shape of the response. Missing only finer detail such as error behavior for stale revisions or result size.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the nested ref fields already document id format, revision >= 1, and project_id provenance. The description only echoes '{id, revision}' and its source, adding little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read one immutable artifact') and enumerates what is returned (metadata, summary, file list, checks). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many other inspect-style siblings (project_inspect, scene_inspect, source_inspect), so an agent must infer the difference from the noun 'artifact'.

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?

'ids/revisions come from project_inspect or earlier tool results' tells the agent the prerequisite call that produces valid inputs. No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given, but the sourcing hint provides clear context for invocation.

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