Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

backfill_artifact_into_org

Destructive

Move an existing tenant-owned artifact into a specified organization, updating both cloud records and the local ownership marker.

Instructions

Move an existing tenant-owned artifact into org_id, updating BOTH the cloud rows and the local ownership marker.

Needs Kiln Business.

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": {
      "artifact_type": "<artifact_type>",
      "artifact_id": "<artifact_id>",
      "org_id": "<org_id>"
    },
    "name": "backfill_artifact_into_org"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
org_idYesThe org the artifact moves into.
artifact_idYesThe id of the artifact moved.
artifact_typeYesThe kind of artifact moved: ``"design"``, ``"preset"`` or ``"feature"``. Any other value is refused.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / artifact_id / description
      Added value: +"The id of the artifact moved."
    • addedInput schema / properties / artifact_type / description
      Added value: +"The kind of artifact moved: ``\"design\"``, ``\"preset\"`` or ``\"feature\"``.  Any other value is refused."
    • addedInput schema / properties / org_id / description
      Added value: +"The org the artifact moves into."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the operation writes to BOTH cloud rows and the local ownership marker, which signals a dual-store consistency effect an agent should anticipate. It also discloses the Kiln Business entitlement requirement. It stops short of saying whether the move is reversible or what happens if one store fails.

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, the mutation scope front-loaded ahead of the entitlement note. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 three-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers target, side effects, and the tier gate. What remains unstated is failure semantics — partial-write behavior and idempotency — which matters given the explicit dual-store update.

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%, including the allowed artifact_type values and a note that other values are refused, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds only the notion that the artifact must be tenant-owned, which constrains artifact_id indirectly. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a concrete verb and resource ('Move an existing tenant-owned artifact into org_id') with a precise target, so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling `transfer_artifact_between_orgs`, which sounds near-identical and is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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 phrase 'Needs Kiln Business' is useful prerequisite guidance, implying the call will fail without that tier. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus `transfer_artifact_between_orgs`, no statement of preconditions (must the artifact currently be unowned, or owned by another org?), and no guidance for the already-in-org case.

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