ArtifactSmith

edit

Create a revised artifact version from the latest completed base using an exact change request; flag stale bases and accept replacement source, style, or format.

Instructions

Build a new version from base_version (the latest done version) using the user's exact change request. Returns a conflict if base_version is stale. Inspect, then edit from the latest.

source_content and source_files (optional, 200 KB total) replace the base version's source.
If omitted, the base version's source is reused.

style (optional) is house, bold, editorial, playful, terminal, or swiss. Omit it to keep the
style the artifact was last built with. It applies to HTML only; other formats accept it and
ignore it.

format (optional) is html, markdown, pdf, docx, or xlsx. Omit it to keep the artifact's current
format. A different format builds this version in that format. When the version is done, the
artifact's format updates. The artifact id and slug stay the same. Older versions keep the format
they were built with.

display_name (optional) is the card title. When this version finishes, that name replaces the
artifact's display_name. Omit it and a changed page title (the HTML title, or the first Markdown
heading) becomes the card title instead. The slug stays the same.

Ends as needs_input with a missing message if the change needs facts that were not supplied.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`model`	No
`style`	No
`format`	No
`workspace`	No
`artifact_id`	Yes
`base_version`	Yes
`display_name`	No
`source_files`	No
`source_content`	No
`idempotency_key`	No
`verbatim_request`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses the stale-base conflict, that source is replaced only when supplied, that style is HTML-only and silently ignored elsewhere, that format changes propagate to the artifact while old versions keep their format, and that it can end as needs_input. It omits idempotency_key, model, and workspace semantics.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose and the stale-base caveat are front-loaded, then parameters are handled in short labeled blocks. It is on the long side but nearly every sentence adds behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present, the description supplies the behavioral context an agent needs (conflict, override semantics, format propagation, needs_input terminal state). The gaps are the undocumented model/workspace/idempotency_key parameters, which matter less for correctness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains base_version, source_content/source_files (with the 200 KB cap), the style enum values, the format enum values, display_name fallback behavior, and the verbatim_request intent. It leaves artifact_id, model, workspace, and idempotency_key undefined, so it falls short of full coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Build a new version from base_version ... using the user's exact change request.' It distinguishes the operation from the sibling 'create' by anchoring on a base version, though it never names create explicitly to draw the contrast.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Returns a conflict if base_version is stale. Inspect, then edit from the latest' gives a clear conditional workflow that routes the agent to the sibling 'inspect' tool before calling edit. It stops short of stating when-not to use edit or naming other alternatives.

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

Deploy Server