ArtifactSmith

export

Download a specific version of a rendered artifact as an HTML, Markdown, PDF, DOCX, or XLSX file and get a temporary link to save or share it.

Instructions

Download link for one rendered file (html, md, pdf, docx, or xlsx).

Permission: export.
Arguments: artifact_id (required), version (optional; latest done version).
Returns: download_url (valid 15 minutes), file, version, sha256, self_contained, expires_in.
Example: export(artifact_id="art_example", version=1)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`version`	No	Done version to download. Optional; defaults to the latest done version.
`artifact_id`	Yes	Artifact to download. Required.

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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the required 'export' permission and that the returned download_url is valid for only 15 minutes (reinforced by expires_in). It stops short of describing failure behavior when the version is not done or whether repeat calls invalidate prior links.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then cleanly sectioned into Permission/Arguments/Returns/Example. The Returns list largely duplicates the output schema, which is slight redundancy, but the 15-minute validity note earns its place.

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 a two-parameter read-style tool with an output schema present, the description supplies the key extras an agent needs: required permission, default version behavior, and link expiration. Only error/failure-mode context is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented with the same semantics the description restates (artifact_id required; version optional, defaults to latest done version). The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: producing a download link for one rendered file, and enumerates the supported output formats (html, md, pdf, docx, xlsx). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create, edit, publish, and share.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Download link for one rendered file' and the permission note, but the description never states when to use export versus publish/share or any preconditions (e.g. version must be a 'done' version). No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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

Deploy Server