FlagForge MCP Server

list_artifacts

Retrieve all artifacts attached to a CTF challenge, including images, pcaps, and notes, with sha256 hashes for verification.

Instructions

List files/artifacts attached to a challenge (images, pcaps, notes) with sha256

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": {
      "challenge_id": "<challenge_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_artifacts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`challenge_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that the operation is a read-only listing and that results include sha256 hashes, but it does not disclose pagination, output format, permissions, or error behavior. This is adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

A single sentence conveys the action, resource, scope, example artifact types, and a key output field with no wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description is mostly sufficient to attempt a call, especially with the schema providing the required UUID format. However, there is no output schema and no mention of return structure, pagination, or relation to upload_artifact, leaving some ambiguity about what a successful response contains.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for challenge_id, and the description does not explicitly explain the parameter or its format beyond the context 'attached to a challenge'. The tool name and schema format make challenge_id somewhat self-evident, but the description adds little direct parameter-level meaning.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'files/artifacts attached to a challenge', with concrete examples (images, pcaps, notes) and an output detail (sha256). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events or list_challenges, which target different resources.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upload_artifact or list_evidence. The description implies usage from the tool name, but it does not give context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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