Gantry

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_artifact_files

Read-only

List files for a specific artifact revision to inspect versioned robotics state, enabling targeted review of artifacts and their contents before changes or evidence checks.

Instructions

list artifact files

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": {
      "arguments": "<arguments>"
    },
    "name": "list_artifact_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`arguments`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.4.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

D1.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: no statement about pagination behavior, result ordering, or the meaning of the nested basis/intent fields that materially change what is returned.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The text is short but that is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single lowercase fragment with no structure gives the agent nothing to front-load a decision on.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with nested objects, cursor pagination, and zero schema description coverage, the description supplies none of the context an agent needs to call it correctly. No output schema exists to compensate either.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and fails entirely. Parameters such as after (a cursor, presumably), limit (max 500), and the opaque nested basis and intent objects are completely undocumented in both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"list artifact files" restates the tool name with no added specificity. It does not say what an artifact file is, what a revision_id scopes, or how this differs from sibling tools such as read_artifact_batch or read_artifact_chunk.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the closely related siblings (read_artifact_batch, read_artifact_chunk, restore_artifact) that an agent must choose between. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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