Move file bytes through opaque temporary handles by creating, appending, reading, or deleting artifacts for chunked ROM transfers without direct file paths.
Move file bytes through opaque temporary handles. Requires FILES; create/append also WRITES.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| offset | No | ||
| artifact_id | No | ||
| data_base64 | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real detail the annotations do not: which specific actions (create/append) mutate versus which do not, plus a FILES permission requirement. It stops short of describing handle lifetime, offset/limit behavior, or error modes, so the added value is moderate.
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?
Two terse fragments with no filler, and the core operation leads before the permission caveat. The capitalized FILES/WRITES emphasizes the constraints effectively, though "opaque" costs clarity for brevity.
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?
With five parameters at 0% schema coverage and a destructive mutation surface, the description should explain the create-then-handle workflow, offset/limit paging, and data format. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the parameter and workflow gaps leave an agent unable to invoke this correctly from the description alone.
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% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. Only artifact_id is faintly implied ("opaque temporary handles"); limit, offset, and data_base64 receive no explanation of units, base64 encoding, or paging semantics.
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 states a rough verb+resource ("Move file bytes") but the operative phrase "through opaque temporary handles" is jargon that obscures what a caller actually does. It never references the create/append/read/delete actions in the enum, and it does nothing to separate this tool from siblings like romm_api_read or romm_api_list. Purpose is inferable but vague.
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?
"Requires FILES; create/append also WRITES" gestures at a precondition but never says when to choose this tool over the byte-oriented siblings (romm_api_read, romm_api_list, romm_socket). There is no when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.