Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
VisionMCP

VisionMCP

by joshuahickscorp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

vision.list_artifacts

List content-addressed artifacts from a project to retrieve recorded visual evidence and tamper-evident receipts.

Instructions

List content-addressed artifacts recorded in the project.

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>"
    },
    "name": "vision.list_artifacts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention pagination, ordering, or any side effects. The tool is read-only but that is not explicitly stated.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative 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?

For a list tool with an output schema, the description should mention pagination, sorting, or filtering. It does not, making it incomplete given the lack of parameter descriptions and annotations.

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% and the description does not add any parameter meaning beyond parameter names. 'limit' and 'project_path' are somewhat self-explanatory but the description could clarify limit's purpose and default behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'content-addressed artifacts', and specifies the scope 'recorded in the project'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vision.get_artifact which retrieves a single artifact.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vision.query or vision.get_artifact. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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