Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gantry

Gantry

by fourn9
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

read_artifact_batch

Read-only

Retrieve a batch of artifact parts from a specific revision in one request, so you can inspect versioned robotics development state without repeated reads.

Instructions

read artifact batch

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": "read_artifact_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argumentsYes
idempotency_keyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.4.0

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 externally. Beyond that the description discloses nothing: it does not mention the 64-item batch cap, what happens on missing paths or indices, or the meaning of basis/intent/idempotency_key fields.

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?

Three words with no structure or front-loading of value. It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than economy; there is nothing for the extra length to have crowded out.

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?

The tool has a nested schema, a required arguments wrapper, a 64-item maxItems constraint, and no output schema. A three-word description leaves every operational question unanswered, making it unusable for correct invocation without reading the raw schema.

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% and the input is a nested object with revision_id, parts (array of path/index objects), basis, intent, and idempotency_key. The description explains none of these, so the agent must infer the contract entirely from types and names, with no help on path/index pairing semantics.

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?

"read artifact batch" only restates the tool name with no added meaning. It does not say what an artifact batch is, what a revision is, or how this differs from read_artifact_chunk or list_artifact_files in the sibling set.

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 at all. Neither the description nor the schema indicates when to choose this batch reader over read_artifact_chunk, list_artifact_files, or restore_artifact, nor are there preconditions or limits mentioned.

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