Gantry

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

read_artifact_chunk

Read-only

Retrieve one hash-verified artifact chunk (up to 32 MiB) by revision, path, and index to access large files in verified parts; use index 0 for ordinary files.

Instructions

Read one hash-verified part, at most 32 MiB. Ordinary files have only index 0.

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_chunk"
  }
}

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts—a 32 MiB per-part size ceiling and hash verification—but is silent on what happens when verification fails and whether parts must be read sequentially.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and with zero filler. The terseness is close to under-specification, but no wording is wasted.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, plus undocumented nested 'basis' and 'intent' objects, the description should explain what a chunk contains (raw bytes, encoding, hash format) and how to iterate indices. It omits all of the return-value behavior an agent needs to use the result.

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

Parameters4/5

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 burden; it explains the meaning of 'index' and the common case of index 0, which is the parameter an agent would most likely get wrong. It says nothing about revision_id, path, basis, or intent, leaving nested-object parameters fully undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reading one 'hash-verified part' with a 32 MiB cap. An agent can distinguish this from read_artifact_batch only by inference from the tool name, since the description never names the artifact or the batch sibling explicitly.

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?

'Ordinary files have only index 0' implies when a non-zero index is needed, which is useful routing information. However, it gives no guidance on choosing this over read_artifact_batch or list_artifact_files, and no prerequisites such as how to obtain revision_id/path.

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