holonovel

Local Artifact Registry

manage_artifact

Destructive

Lists, verifies, installs, or removes shareable Novel packs, adventure modules, and ruleset packages from an inbox registry, checking hash and slug integrity before use.

Instructions

Manage the host registry of shareable artifacts — Novel packs, adventure modules, and ruleset packages — exchanged offline through an inbox. list and verify are read-only. install copies a verified artifact into its kind directory and audits it; ruleset tools become callable after restart. remove is permanent (no undo), rebuilds ruleset prompts, and refuses while a Novel depends on it. install/remove need the GM badge and record a security event, and install refuses a hash/provenance mismatch, a mismatched slug, or an existing slug; slug names remove/verify and must match the artifact's slug on install (a pack without one adopts it). source is an inbox-relative file or package directory; location is GM-only. Use when: exchanging a world pack or ruleset between installations. Do NOT use when: installing a package built in-process — use manage_ruleset (action: install); importing state into the active Novel — use manage_archive (action: import).

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "manage_artifact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No	Artifact kind; filters list and targets install/remove/verify.
`slug`	No	Artifact slug (remove/verify); on install it must match the artifact's own slug, and a pack without one adopts it.
`action`	Yes	list, install, remove, or verify.
`source`	No	Inbox-relative Novel pack (.json), adventure module (.md), or ruleset package directory to install (install).
`integrity`	No	Integrity filter: verified, unverified, or absent (list).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	No	Human-readable text envelope mirroring the structured result (REQ-001, REQ-548a).
`status`	Yes	Machine-readable result status: OK, NEED_INPUT, WARNING, PARTIAL, or an error category (REQ-002, REQ-548c).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2026.10.18Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by specifying that remove is permanent with no undo, refuses while a Novel depends on it, and rebuilds ruleset prompts; that install/remove require the GM badge and record a security event; and that ruleset tools only become callable after a restart. It also enumerates install refusal conditions (hash/provenance mismatch, mismatched slug, existing slug). No behavior contradicts the structured hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then action-by-action rules, then usage routing — a sensible structure with little wasted text. The middle section is a single long run-on sentence with many semicolon-joined clauses, which makes it dense to parse but not padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, permission-gated, four-action tool, the description covers prerequisites (GM badge), side effects (security event, prompt rebuild, restart), failure modes, and scope. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents kind, slug, action, source, and integrity, and the description largely restates that mapping (slug names remove/verify, source is an inbox-relative file or directory). It adds marginal value with cross-action coupling (slug must match on install, a pack without one adopts it), but it also references a 'location' parameter that does not exist in the schema, which is mildly confusing rather than clarifying.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Manage the host registry of shareable artifacts') and enumerates the artifact kinds handled (Novel packs, adventure modules, ruleset packages). It then breaks out what each of the four actions does, so an agent can distinguish this from every sibling tool without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Contains explicit 'Use when' (exchanging a world pack or ruleset between installations) and 'Do NOT use when' clauses that name the correct alternatives: manage_ruleset (action: install) for in-process packages and manage_archive (action: import) for importing state into the active Novel. This is exactly the routing information an agent needs to pick the right tool.

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