pūrmemo

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_artifacts

Read-onlyIdempotent

List artifacts associated with a parent conversation, optionally filtered by artifact type and row limit. Retrieve saved research, code, tables, frameworks, specs, or diagrams from persistent memory.

Instructions

List artifacts linked to a parent conversation. Pairs with save_artifact.

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": {
      "parent_conversation_id": "<parent_conversation_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_artifacts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max rows (default 20, max 100)
`artifact_type`	No	Optional filter: research\|code\|table\|framework\|spec\|diagram\|other
`parent_conversation_id`	Yes	Parent conversation id that artifacts were saved against

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv15.7.23Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it lists artifacts and pairs with save_artifact, which is consistent but does not provide significant additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations offer.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description consists of two concise and front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and relationship to a sibling tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple list operation. It could mention the response format, but the context signals and annotations provide sufficient information.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning or examples for parameters, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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 tool lists artifacts linked to a parent conversation, with a specific verb 'List' and resource 'artifacts'. It also mentions pairing with save_artifact, which distinguishes it from other list tools like get_investigations or get_snapshot.

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?

The description implies usage context by stating 'pairs with save_artifact', but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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