Bisque Presentations

Get an Artifact

get_artifact

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read one Artifact: title, who can open it, the Version viewers see (published_version_id, null while a publication is still being prepared), and its URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`artifact_id`	Yes	The Artifact id (art_…).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The viewer page.
`icon`	No
`type`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`group_id`	No
`created_at`	No
`updated_at`	No
`artifact_id`	Yes
`description`	No
`audience_mode`	Yes	Who can open it: owner, users, org, or public.
`discoverability`	Yes
`organization_id`	No
`latest_version_id`	No
`viewer_version_mode`	No
`published_version_id`	Yes	The Version viewers see; null until a publication is ready.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful behavioral context about the returned Version viewer state and the published_version_id null condition during publication preparation, which annotations do not convey.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence states the core action first, then lists returned fields and a key nuanced edge case. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple single-parameter read operation with complete schema documentation, rich annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the tool's purpose, primary return fields, and an important publication-state nuance, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and artifact_id is already well-documented with a pattern and example. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond restating that it reads one Artifact, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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?

The description opens with the specific verb 'Read' and the singular resource 'one Artifact', making the tool's scope immediately clear. It also enumerates the returned fields (title, access, published_version_id, URL), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_artifacts and get_artifact_thread.

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?

'Read one Artifact' provides clear context that this is the single-item read tool, contrasting with list_artifacts for multiple items. It does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Bisque Presentations tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped into clear resource families (artifacts, artifact threads, presentations, channels) and descriptions explicitly redirect between create_artifact and create_presentation. The main potential confusion is create_presentation vs publish_narrated_presentation, since both produce presentations but differ in narration source; the descriptions do clarify this.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use snake_case verb_noun naming with consistent families like get_artifact, get_artifact_thread, and get_presentation_spec. publish_narrated_presentation is longer but still follows the verb_noun pattern, and there are no mixed casing styles or erratic naming conventions.

Tool Count4/5

19 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the count is justified by four clear subdomains: artifacts, artifact threads, presentations, and channels. No tools are redundant, though the set is large enough to feel slightly heavy.

Completeness4/5

Artifacts have full CRUD plus sharing, and threads have create/read/list/reply/resolve. Presentations cover authoring spec, creation/publishing, status, analytics, and reading context, but there is no delete or explicit update endpoint for presentations and no exposed way to fetch mentionables; these are workable gaps rather than fatal ones.

Resources

Need Help?