Intelligence Aeternum
Server Details
AI training dataset marketplace: 2M+ museum artworks with Golden Codex enrichment
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
- URL
- Repository
- codex-curator/intelligence-aeternum-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 1
- Server Listing
- Alexandria Aeternum Genesis
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools have distinct purposes: make-purchase, payment-methods, and price-listing. However, the complete lack of descriptions makes it harder to distinguish edge cases, such as whether price-listing includes purchasing options or if payment-methods is purely informational.
Two tools use a verb_noun style (make-purchase, price-listing), while payment-methods is a noun phrase. This is a mix of conventions, but still readable and not chaotic.
Three tools is a small but reasonable count for a focused purchasing/payment domain. It feels slightly thin, but not inappropriate for a narrowly scoped server.
The surface is severely incomplete: there is a purchase tool but no get/update/delete for purchases, no user or order management, and no descriptions to clarify intended scope. Critical operations like viewing purchase history or managing payment methods are absent.
Available Tools
3 toolsmake-purchaseDInspect
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes | ||
| params | Yes | ||
| paymentMethod | Yes | ||
| signedTransaction | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
payment-methodsDInspect
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
price-listingDInspect
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| searchQuery | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
3 tool updates
- First observed
make-purchase - First observed
payment-methods - First observed
price-listing
Related MCP Connectors
MET Museum collection via MCP — 500K+ artworks, metadata, provenance, open-access images.
Cleveland Museum of Art Open Access API (~63k artworks, many CC0)
Art MCP — Metropolitan Museum of Art Collection API (free, no auth)
AI-native art catalogue. Catalogue works, parse provenance, and generate signed RAIs.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides access to European cultural heritage collections and artworks, allowing users to search for items, get detailed information about specific artworks, browse collections by institution, and receive AI-powered recommendations based on interests.1-
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to search and explore over 570,000 artworks from the Metropolitan Museum of Art and Art Institute of Chicago without needing an API key.92MIT
- FlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceThis server enables AI models to access the Städel Museum's digital collection via OAI-PMH, allowing harvesting of records, retrieval of multilingual metadata, and fetching of high-resolution images.42-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to query a 282,731-node knowledge graph of art market transactions and provenance records, returning cited answers with <1% hallucination and explicit coverage gaps.4 npmMIT
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.