Inspect and verify authorized registered artifacts in a bounded region, ensuring integrity and retrieving details under access controls.
Verify and inspect a bounded region of an authorized registered artifact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_text | No | ||
| clearance | No | restricted | |
| tenant_id | No | local | |
| evidence_id | Yes | ||
| groups_json | No | [] | |
| principal_id | No | local-user | |
| metadata_only | No | ||
| projects_json | No | [] | |
| native_locator_json | No | {} |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions 'verify and inspect' without stating whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, or what authorization entails. The word 'authorized' hints at permission requirements but provides no details on failures, outputs, or state changes.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters; while concise, it sacrifices necessary detail. The structure is acceptable but the content is too sparse.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this description is grossly inadequate. An agent would not know what evidence_id refers to, what the other parameters control, or what a successful response looks like. The description does not cover the essential information needed to correctly invoke the tool.
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 description coverage is 0% and there are 9 parameters. The description does not explain the meaning or purpose of any parameter, including the required evidence_id or the many optional ones like max_text, clearance, or metadata_only. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema explanations.
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?
The description provides a specific verb ('verify and inspect') and a resource ('authorized registered artifact'), but the scope of 'bounded region' is vague and doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like company_artifact_segment or company_artifact_snapshot. It's a clear one-liner but leaves the exact operation ambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as company_artifact_register, company_artifact_snapshot, or company_memory_search. No context is given for appropriate invocation scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.