Search 53K+ museum artworks from Alexandria Aeternum (MET, Chicago, NGA, Rijksmuseum, Smithsonian, Cleveland, Paris). FREE. (FREE)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-100) | |
| query | Yes | Search query (e.g. 'impressionist landscape', 'Monet', 'Dutch Golden Age') | |
| museum | No | Filter by museum (met, chicago, nga, rijks, smithsonian, cleveland, paris) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that the service is free and lists museums, but does not provide deeper behavioral context beyond what annotations convey.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words, though 'FREE' is repeated. Structure is front-loaded and efficient.
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 a simple search tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It could mention result format, but the absence is not critical.
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?
All three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats the museum list already covered by the museum parameter 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?
Clearly states the tool searches museum artworks from a specific set of major museums, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_artwork or search_tools.
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 when-to-use or alternatives are given, but the description implies it is for searching artworks across multiple museums, which is clear from context and sibling names.
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 distinct operation—artwork retrieval, image processing, asset management, watermarking, etc.—with clear descriptions that prevent confusion. Even similar tools like enrich_metadata and get_artwork_oracle are differentiated by depth and purpose.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_artwork, remove_background, register_hash). The few non-verb-starting names (compliance_manifest) are standard and do not break the overall pattern.
27 tools is slightly above the typical range but justifiable given the broad domain covering artwork access, image processing, and digital rights. Each tool serves a unique purpose without redundancy.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: search, retrieve, analyze, edit, save, and verify assets. Gaps are minimal—e.g., no metadata deletion tool—but the core workflows are fully supported, and the inclusion of compliance and provenance tools adds value.