Get details of a specific artwork by ID including image URL, prompt, tags, and metadata.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_artwork"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Artwork UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the response (image URL, prompt, tags, metadata), which tells the agent what it gets, but says nothing about access control for private/white-label artworks or what happens on an invalid or unknown ID.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the retrieval target comes before the returned fields. The trailing field list is slightly list-like but each item adds real information about the payload.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read tool this is mostly sufficient, and the listed return fields compensate for the absence of an output schema. However, with zero annotations, gaps remain around permissions, error behavior, and whether non-public artworks are reachable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'Artwork UUID'. The description's 'by ID' reinforces but does not extend that meaning (no format, source, or examples), so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The definition leads with a specific verb and resource ('Get details of a specific artwork by ID') and enumerates what comes back (image URL, prompt, tags, metadata). The 'by ID' phrasing implicitly separates it from list-style siblings such as list_my_artworks, but no sibling is named.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: call this when you already hold an artwork identifier and need its details. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives for discovery (list_public_artworks, list_my_artworks) when no ID is known.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.