Retrieve one artwork in full: technical specification, availability, price, curatorial capsule and the physics measured from its master. Accepts the identifier or the title — and when a title belongs to more than one work, it returns them all rather than guessing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Artwork identifier, or its name. An ambiguous name returns every candidate. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It makes the read-only nature clear through 'Retrieve' and importantly discloses the key quirk: an ambiguous title returns all matching works instead of guessing. It does not cover not-found or authentication behavior, but the core retrieval behavior is transparent for a simple get-style tool.
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 dense, well-structured sentence front-loads the action and result, then folds in the ambiguity rule without filler. Every phrase contributes useful information.
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 only one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned and how ambiguous titles behave. The main omission is explicit handling of not-found cases, but that is a minor gap for a simple 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% because the single parameter 'name' is already described as 'Artwork identifier, or its name. An ambiguous name returns every candidate.' The description repeats that input mode and ambiguity behavior, so it adds no significant parameter meaning beyond the schema.
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 opens with a specific verb and object—'Retrieve one artwork in full'—and lists the exact content area of the result: technical specification, availability, price, curatorial capsule, and physics. This clearly distinguishes it from the catalog/browse/search sibling tools, which would not return a single full artwork record.
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 the right usage context—when a complete single artwork record is needed—and clarifies that it accepts either an identifier or a title. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_artworks or browse_collections, and it names no alternatives or exclusions.
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.