Search live museum, gallery and curatorial job listings, gathered daily from institutions' own career pages. Returns up to 20 roles, newest first, each with its curatorsearch.com page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Free text matched against title, institution and location, e.g. 'registrar London'. | |
| region | No | ||
| category | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the return count limit, ordering (newest first), and that each result links to a curatorsearch.com page, but it omits any mention of authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Since it's a search, read-only behavior is implied but not stated; this is a moderate disclosure.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every clause adds information (source, frequency, limit, ordering, link format). It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Given 4 parameters (2 with enums), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter usage, return field details, or pagination behavior. The mention of 'curatorsearch.com page' is vague, leaving agents uncertain about the structure of each result. This tool needs more contextual detail to be called correctly.
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 description coverage is only 25% (only 'query' has a description). The description does not explain any parameters, such as how 'limit' caps results, what 'region' and 'category' filter on, or how they interact. This is a significant gap; the description should compensate for the missing schema descriptions but does not.
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 description clearly states the action (Search), the resource (museum/gallery/curatorial job listings), and provides specifics like daily gathering, limit of 20, and ordering. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like institution_jobs or get_job, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to infer its role.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose search_jobs over institution_jobs (for a specific institution) or get_job (for a single job), nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent is left to guess the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.