For the servent it doesn't have very many hps and ac is kind of ok I was wondering can the servent ware armor,use shields,use maybe weapons like a bow or magic items that the artificer gets/makes. Just a thought since the the raw doesn't it can or can't and I have a old set of studed armor and a shield it could use maybe. 

It really depends on your DM. There is no RAW that lets it use either of those things, but to be honset: the chance of it not getting killed once it gets into a position where it takes fire is pretty slim even with higher AC.

While that is true if it is harder to hit because of s higher ac at least that makes it last a little longer if it does take fire. Better a little more then none at all. 

RaW, they can't use armor or weapons. At best they'd not be proficient.
It's the size "tiny", not small like a gnome or halfling, so armor or shield is going to be bigger and weight more than it does.

It can use magic items. This includes the "spell storing item" you get at level 11.

It's not really meant to take hits in combat, keep it at range and if possible behind cover.  You can use it to throw magic stones from the cantrip to keep it at a longer range.

It probably wouldn't be unreasonable to ask the DM if it could be considered as an item that is carried or worn if you kept it on your character.  That would basically make it not take damage from almost anything but aslo remove its ability to fly around.

(Battle smith can cast heroism or warding bond or it but idk if that's really worth it)

While that is true the wizard can ware armor and not be proficient in it just takes disadvantage in some checks don't know if on dnd beyond is ment to be able to but it does and let's me know which checks have disadvantage so maybe just with a disadvantage to some of its checks. 

If a wizard wears armor they are not proficient in it they not only get disadvantage in some skills, they get disadvantage in ALL skills, saves, attacks with str or dex and they loose the ability to cast spells.

So if you say "a wizard can wear armor they are not proficient with - yes they can, but they practically seize to be a wizard - or any other kind of useful person.

Thanks I didn't know the part about spell casting part dnd beyond didn't say that still let me tick them off of my wizard well that would make the very useless you are right again thanks 

In my Artificer / Wizard MC I have 2 levels of Art where the homunculus Steven “is” the suit of armour around my familiar owl Jake. At level 6 OoS Wizard I added my Unseen Servant Marc the Spector to the mix as my manifest mind. So yeah I am playing Khonshu. My DM lets me add magic items to my minion like Gauntlets of ogre power, periapt  of wound closing, leather armour +1 and a moon sickle. 

If your equipment can be outfitted on a tiny creature, then yes. There is no rule stating otherwise. Pets (familiars, homunculus, steeds, etc) are physical creatures that are subject to the same conditions as anything else in the world. The only limitations are size, strength, intelligence, and in some cases whether they have the capacity to manipulate an object or use speech.

Any pet can deliver a potion, but only certain pets can unscrew/uncork the container to deliver it to a downed ally. This is what makes certain pets a little more interesting.

Attunement is an point of contention because it can be debated from any angle. These two points have to be remembered and followed. Attunement requires a creature to spend a short rest focused on only that item while being in physical contact with it and if the creature dies it loses attunement. Does a familiar, that is a spirit, die when it is reduced to 0 HP and is returned to the spirit realm? Does a homunculus die when it is reduced to 0HP or is the enchanted gem what is being attuned to? Can a warhorse take a short rest and focus on a single item in meditation? I have always felt attunement was providence of PCs which is why they stand out from the basic rabble. Enemies with items they are attuned to, tend to be the boss or BBEG in campaigns for the same reason.