Retrieves the markdown or code content of an artifact file by filename or path, with an optional conversation ID for scoped lookup.
Reads the markdown or code content of a specific artifact file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conversation_id | No | Optional conversation UUID. | |
| artifact_name_or_path | Yes | Filename or path of the artifact (e.g. 'analysis_results.md'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It signals a read-only operation, but does not disclose permissions, error behavior, return format, or any limits, leaving important context unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the operation and scope directly, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity read tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should clarify return behavior and when it is preferred over list_artifacts; those gaps keep it from being fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not mention conversation_id, but baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already covers parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Reads') and resource ('artifact file'), and specifies the content type as markdown or code. It distinguishes itself from list_artifacts by focusing on a specific file, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'specific artifact file' implies usage after an artifact is known, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_artifacts or other retrieval tools. It lacks when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.