met-museum-mcp-server
Server Details
MET Museum collection via MCP — 500K+ artworks, metadata, provenance, open-access images.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- cyanheads/met-museum-mcp-server
- GitHub Stars
- 3
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct, non-overlapping role: listing departments, searching collections, and retrieving object details. No ambiguity in which tool to use for a given task.
All tool names follow the 'met_' prefix with a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_departments, search_collections, get_object), making them predictable and easy to remember.
Three tools is minimal but appropriate for a focused API that covers the essential workflow: discover departments, search, and retrieve object records. Could use more (e.g., image-specific tool) but not excessive.
The tool set covers the core use case of browsing and fetching collection data. Missing features like direct image retrieval or advanced filtering are minor gaps; the search tool's parameters provide reasonable completeness.
Available Tools
3 toolsmet_get_objectGet Met ObjectsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fetch full records for one or more Met Museum object IDs. Accepts up to 20 IDs per call and returns partial success — a single 404 does not fail the whole batch; per-ID failures are reported separately. Object IDs come from met_search_collections. Non-public-domain objects return empty image URLs. The constituents array is null for anonymous or unattributed works; tags is null for untagged objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objectIDs | Yes | One or more Met object IDs to fetch. Maximum 20 per call. IDs come from met_search_collections. Partial failures are reported per ID rather than failing the whole batch. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| failed | Yes | Object IDs that failed to fetch with per-ID error context. |
| objects | Yes | Successfully fetched objects. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (read-only, idempotent), description adds critical behavioral details: partial failure per ID, empty image URLs for non-public-domain objects, null constituents for anonymous works, null tags for untagged objects.
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?
Concise and well-structured: front-loaded with main purpose, followed by key constraints and edge cases. Every sentence adds value.
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 output schema exists and schema coverage is 100%, description completely covers behavioral edge cases and return value nuances, leaving no ambiguity for an AI agent.
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?
Single parameter has 100% schema coverage with description already stating IDs come from met_search_collections. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what's in 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?
Description clearly states it fetches full records for Met Museum object IDs, distinguishing from sibling tool met_search_collections which returns IDs.
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?
Explicitly says object IDs come from met_search_collections and specifies batch limits and partial success behavior. Downside: doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if you only need IDs, use search).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
met_list_departmentsList Met DepartmentsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return the 19 curatorial departments at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, each with its numeric departmentId and display name — the valid values for the met_search_collections departmentId filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| departments | Yes | All 19 curatorial departments at The Metropolitan Museum of Art. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds the return count and fields, and explains the purpose as a lookup for another tool. Could mention static nature but not required.
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, no fluff. Every part serves a purpose: action, result, application. Perfectly concise.
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 parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers the tool's behavior and context. It explains the output and its relation to siblings, making the tool's role clear.
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?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by detailing the output structure and its use, which helps the agent understand what the tool provides. Cannot score higher as there are no parameters to enhance.
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 tool returns '19 curatorial departments' with specific fields ('numeric departmentId and display name'), and explicitly links it to filtering siblings tool. No ambiguity.
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 explicitly states the output provides 'valid values for the met_search_collections departmentId filter', directly telling when to use this tool (as a prerequisite for filtering searches). No alternatives needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
met_search_collectionsSearch Met CollectionARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search the Metropolitan Museum of Art collection by keyword and optional filters. Returns the total match count and a page of matching object IDs, which met_get_object resolves to full records. Relevance is keyword-based, not semantic; department and geographic filters narrow results more than a longer query. The medium parameter maps to the classification field (pass "Paintings", "Drawings", etc., not material descriptions like "Oil on canvas"). isPublicDomain guarantees CC0-licensed images; hasImages also includes copyrighted works. isOnView restricts results to works currently on display in a Met gallery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Keyword query, matched across title, artist name, culture, medium, tags, and other text fields. Broad terms return large ID sets. | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of object IDs to return from the full result set. The Met search returns every match (up to tens of thousands); this caps how many IDs are returned. | |
| medium | No | Filter by object classification (e.g., "Paintings", "Drawings", "Prints", "Ceramics", "Sculpture", "Photographs", "Textiles"). Maps to the classification field on the object, not the materials/medium text field — pass a classification category name, not a material description like "Oil on canvas". | |
| offset | No | Zero-based index into the full result set to start from (default 0). The nextOffset from a previous response is the value to pass here for the next page; a broad query carries the same timeout risk on every page, so narrow it with filters if paging times out. An offset at or beyond total returns an empty page, not an error. | |
| dateEnd | No | Latest object date (year, inclusive). Negative integers for BCE. Requires dateBegin. | |
| isOnView | No | When true, restricts results to objects currently on display in a Met gallery. The GalleryNumber field on the met_get_object record identifies the specific gallery. | |
| dateBegin | No | Earliest object date (year, inclusive). Negative integers for BCE (e.g., -500 for 500 BCE). Requires dateEnd. | |
| hasImages | No | When true, restricts results to objects that have at least one associated image, including copyrighted works whose images cannot be reproduced. isPublicDomain is the filter for freely reusable CC0 images. | |
| geoLocation | No | Filter by geographic origin. Each value is matched broadly against geography fields and artist nationality. Multiple values are AND-combined — ["France", "Egypt"] returns objects associated with both, not either, so more values narrow the result set. Works best with the Egyptian Art, Greek and Roman Art, and similar departments that have well-populated geography fields. | |
| isHighlight | No | When true, restricts to objects the Met has designated as highlights — major works central to the collection. | |
| departmentId | No | Restrict results to one curatorial department. Valid IDs come from met_list_departments — the Met exposes a sparse set (roughly 1–21, with gaps); an unrecognized ID is rejected with an invalid_department error rather than silently returning no matches. Can be combined with other filters; combining with isPublicDomain works but returns far fewer results than expected. | |
| isPublicDomain | No | When true, restricts results to objects released under CC0 open access — free to use without permission or attribution. These objects return direct high-resolution image URLs in met_get_object. Combining with departmentId works but returns far fewer results, since the search index covers only a subset of public-domain objects per department. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | Total number of matching objects in the Met collection (may far exceed the returned IDs). |
| returned | Yes | Count of object IDs in this response — may be less than `total` when the full result set was truncated by `limit`. |
| objectIDs | Yes | Object IDs for the first `limit` results. |
| remaining | Yes | Count of matching object IDs after this page: total − (offset + returned), floored at 0. 0 means this is the last page. |
| truncated | Yes | True when matching IDs remain beyond this page (offset + returned < total); false when this page is the last. |
| nextOffset | Yes | The offset to pass on the next call to continue paging, or null when the result set is exhausted (truncated is false). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses that the search returns every match up to tens of thousands, describes pagination behavior with offset and timeout risks, explains departmentId validation (unrecognized IDs cause invalid_department error), and notes that combining isPublicDomain with departmentId returns fewer results than expected.
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?
The description is a single paragraph that efficiently covers all key aspects without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes necessary details. While dense, every sentence adds value; minor length is justified by the tool's complexity.
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 the 12 parameters and output schema, the description covers all essential behavioral and usage aspects: output format (total count and IDs), pagination, filter interactions, validation errors, and complementary tool (met_get_object). It leaves no significant gaps for a search tool with rich annotations and output schema.
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 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial value: explains q broadness, limit caps, medium classification mapping, offset pagination and timeout, dateBegin and dateEnd mutual requirement, geoLocation AND-combination, departmentId validation, and the distinction between isPublicDomain and hasImages. This enriches semantic understanding 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 clearly states the tool searches the Met collection by keyword and optional filters, returns total match count and object IDs, and explicitly mentions that met_get_object resolves IDs to full records. It distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing the output and the complementary role of met_get_object.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use filters (e.g., department and geographic filters narrow results more than a longer query), explains the correct usage of medium vs. materials, clarifies isPublicDomain vs. hasImages, and warns about filter combinations reducing results. It also directs users to met_get_object for full records, offering clear alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!