Search jewellery works/objects by title, artist, material, year range, or for-sale status. Returns paginated work cards (artist, year, materials, thumbnail, canonical URL).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| year_to | No | ||
| for_sale | No | ||
| material | No | ||
| year_from | No | ||
| artist_slug | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that it returns paginated work cards with specific fields, providing contextual behavior beyond annotations without contradiction.
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: first states purpose and searchable fields, second describes return format. No redundant information, front-loaded with essential purpose.
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?
Provides a good overview of search capabilities and return format. However, missing details on pagination defaults, search semantics (AND/OR), and how query interacts with other fields. Given no output schema, it's fairly complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description lists searchable fields (title, artist, material, year range, for-sale status) which maps to several parameters, but lacks explicit mapping and format details for all 7 parameters.
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 it searches jewellery works/objects by specific fields (title, artist, material, year range, or for-sale status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_work or search_artists.
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 implies when to use this tool (when searching works by criteria) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_work for direct ID lookup.
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.