get_artworkSingle artwork by accession number (e.g. "1962.158") or numeric id.
This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "1962.158"
},
"name": "get_artwork"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | e.g. "1962.158" or "94979" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "1962.158"
+ },
+ {
+ "id": "94979"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Single artwork record with full details",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the identifier format, but does not contradict annotations.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence that front-loads the key information. No wasted words.
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?
For a simple lookup tool with rich annotations and output schema, the description is complete. It covers the essential usage pattern.
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% with examples. The description adds minor clarification on identifier formats, but does not significantly extend beyond what the schema provides.
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 retrieves a single artwork using an identifier (accession number or numeric id). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like search or entity_profile.
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 usage when a specific artwork identifier is known, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.
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.