nimbus-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List Artifacts

list_artifacts

Retrieve trained models, filters, and other artifacts saved by a specific EEG/BCI execution. Provide the execution ID to inspect and manage outputs.

Instructions

Trained artifacts (models/filters, e.g. *.pkl) saved by an execution.

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": {
      "execution_id": "<execution_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_artifacts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`execution_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it delivers almost nothing behavioral: no auth requirements, no ordering or pagination notes, no statement that this is a read-only listing. The one useful hint is that artifacts belong to an execution.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single terse sentence fragment with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — it omits the verb and all operational context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a tool with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented required parameter, the description should say more about usage and scoping than it does.

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% for the single execution_id parameter, so the description must compensate. It does partially, by implying that artifacts are scoped to a specific execution, but it never explains the format or provenance of the execution_id itself.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names the resource (trained artifacts such as *.pkl models/filters) and ties it to an execution, so the domain is clear. However, the verb is only implied by the name 'list_artifacts' and never stated, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling download_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 when-to-use guidance is given. With a sibling download_artifact present, the agent is left to infer whether this tool enumerates artifacts, downloads them, or both.

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