Get one artist by slug: biography, education, materials, linked-data (MuIS/Wikidata), knowledge-graph relations, and verified press mentions. Includes links.html for citation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Artist slug, e.g. from search_artists links. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral details such as including 'links.html for citation' and listing the types of data returned, which goes beyond the annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with key information, no redundant content. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Without an output schema, the description lists most returned data fields (biography, education, materials, etc.) and mentions links.html, which is fairly complete for a retrieval tool.
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% with a clear description for the single parameter 'slug'. The description adds context that the slug comes from search_artists, enhancing understanding.
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 tool retrieves a single artist by slug and lists specific data fields (biography, education, materials, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_exhibition or get_organization by focusing on the artist entity.
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 mentions the slug can be obtained from search_artists, implying a workflow, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_artists or when not to use it.
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.
Each tool targets a unique entity or action (e.g., get_artist vs. search_artists, get_relations vs. get_stats). No two tools have overlapping purposes, so an agent can clearly distinguish them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: either get_<entity> or search_<entity>. No mixing of conventions like camelCase or different verbs.
12 tools is well-scoped for an archive server covering artists, exhibitions, works, organizations, marks, press, and graph relations. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the main entities (artists, works, exhibitions, organizations) and provides search and retrieval for all key types. Additional tools like get_relations and get_timeline fill gaps for connected data and chronology, making the set feel complete for its domain.