Search the exhibition database by title, year, or organizer. Returns paginated exhibition cards (title, dates, venue, city, canonical URL).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| year | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| organization_slug | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool returns paginated exhibition cards with specific fields, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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 sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with purpose and output structure. Every part earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description covers return fields but lacks pagination details (page size, defaults). Additionally, parameter usage (exact match, partial) is not clarified. Adequate but has gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by title, year, or organizer,' mapping to query, year, and organization_slug. However, the 'page' parameter is omitted, and the mapping is not fully explicit (e.g., 'query' for title).
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 resource (exhibition database) and searchable fields (title, year, organizer). It distinguishes from sibling tools that are get-specific or search other entities.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_exhibition. Usage context is implied by the search parameters, but no when-not-to or comparisons.
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.