Bisque Presentations

List your Artifacts

list_artifacts

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Artifacts you own (scope owned, the default), ones shared with you (shared), or both (all), newest first. Each item carries its id, title, who can open it, and its URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	No	Only this type.
`limit`	No	Page size, default 25.
`scope`	No	Default owned.
`cursor`	No	next_cursor from a prior page.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`next_cursor`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

AddedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the description adds useful behavioral context: default scope, newest-first ordering, and the fields returned in each item. This goes beyond the structured data and gives the agent a concrete expectation of the result.

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?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently covers scope, ordering, and output shape. Every clause contributes, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no required parameters, strong annotations, full schema parameter descriptions, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The minor absence of explicit sibling routing does not create a correctness gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description still adds value by explaining scope semantics ('owned' means you own, 'shared' means shared with you, 'all' means both) and reinforcing the default. This is more than the bare enum values provide.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('Artifacts'), and the scope options (owned/shared/all). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_artifact, create_artifact, and list_artifact_threads by naming the exact resource and operation.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: listing artifacts by ownership scope, with the default spelled out and what 'shared' and 'all' mean. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_artifact for single-item lookups, but the purpose is clear and no misleading guidance is present.

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?