Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
VisionMCP

VisionMCP

by joshuahickscorp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

vision.get_artifact

Resolve content-addressed artifacts by SHA-256 digest to retrieve tamper-evident receipts and visual program evidence.

Instructions

Resolve a content-addressed artifact by SHA-256 digest.

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": {
      "project_path": "<project_path>",
      "digest": "<digest>"
    },
    "name": "vision.get_artifact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
digestYes
include_pathNo
project_pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'resolve,' implying read-only retrieval, but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or output format. For a retrieval tool without annotations, more detail is needed.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant words. Front-loaded with the core action. Could be slightly more detailed without harming conciseness.

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 3 parameters and an output schema (not detailed in description), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the return value, error handling, how 'include_path' affects the result, or the expected format of 'project_path.' This is insufficient for a tool likely used in retrieval workflows.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by clarifying that 'digest' is a SHA-256 digest, but provides no additional meaning for 'include_path' or 'project_path.'

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 clearly states the tool resolves an artifact by SHA-256 digest. It uses a specific verb-resource pair, distinguishing it from listing tools like vision.list_artifacts, though not explicitly differentiating from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vision.observe or vision.query. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context provided.

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