Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gantry

Gantry

by fourn9
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

restore_artifact

Read-only

Retrieves saved artifact bytes or a metadata-only manifest for a given revision, with per-part and complete-file hashes; chunked files require separate chunk reads.

Instructions

Return saved bytes or metadata_only manifest. Chunked files require read_artifact_chunk; hashes cover each part and the complete file.

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": "restore_artifact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argumentsYes
idempotency_keyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it returns saved bytes or a metadata-only manifest, chunked files require a different tool, and hashes cover both individual parts and the complete file.

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?

The description is two compact sentences with the main return behavior and the chunking restriction front-loaded. It is efficient, though its telegraphic phrasing leaves some ambiguity around the required revision_id.

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?

Given nested objects, a required revision_id, idempotency_key, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It covers chunking and hash behavior but does not explain key parameters or the full return shape.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It only clarifies metadata_only somewhat and leaves revision_id, basis, intent, and idempotency_key unexplained, which is a significant gap for nested parameters.

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 specific action and resource: return saved artifact bytes or a metadata-only manifest. It distinguishes the tool from read_artifact_chunk for chunked files, though the name 'restore_artifact' is less clearly aligned with a read/retrieval operation.

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?

It gives one explicit routing rule: chunked files require read_artifact_chunk instead. However, it does not compare against read_artifact_batch, list_artifact_files, or explain when metadata_only should be used.

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