Find global artifacts in Rapid7 InsightConnect. Filter by name and sort results to locate the artifacts you need for automation workflows.
Discover global artifacts, optionally filtered by name, sorted by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| sort_order | No | asc |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide strong safety context (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description has a lower burden. It adds that results can be filtered by name and sorted by name, which is useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose pagination behavior (e.g., max limit) or the default sort order.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and two key modifiers, though it omits pagination details that would make it more useful.
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 presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate for a simple listing tool. However, with zero parameter descriptions in the schema, the description's failure to mention pagination and sort_order leaves an agent to infer these details from parameter names alone. This is acceptable for a simple tool but not complete.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it only references the name filter and sorting. It does not explain the limit, offset, or sort_order parameters, nor their semantics (e.g., default asc, max limit 30). This is a significant gap for a tool with four parameters.
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?
Description clearly states a read-only list operation on a specific resource ('global artifacts') and distinguishes it from get_global_artifact (singular) and list_artifact_entries. The verb 'Discover' is slightly less direct than 'List', but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention that get_global_artifact should be used for a single artifact, nor does it explain how this relates to list_artifact_entries. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'Discover'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.