get_art_crimeGet the full record for a single stolen or missing artwork from the FBI National Stolen Art File by UID. Returns title, full description, crime category, maker/artist, materials, measurements, period, additional data, all images, and the FBI case URL. Use a UID returned by list_art_crimes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | The artwork UID from a list_art_crimes result. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds value beyond those annotations by enumerating the return content (title, description, crime category, maker, materials, measurements, period, images, case URL), which is especially useful because there is no output schema. No contradiction with 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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and key constraint, and the second lists the return contents. The field list is dense but justified because the tool has no output schema.
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 one-parameter get-by-UID tool with strong safety annotations, the description covers the source of the UID, the scope of the record, and the primary returned fields. It does not state what happens when a UID is not found, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity of the operation.
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%, and the property description already says the UID comes from a list_art_crimes result. The tool description repeats this relationship but adds no new format, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('full record for a single stolen or missing artwork from the FBI National Stolen Art File'), and the lookup method ('by UID'). It also distinguishes itself naturally from the sibling list_art_crimes tool by emphasizing that this returns one full record rather than a list.
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 gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Use a UID returned by list_art_crimes.' This clearly tells the agent where the required value comes from and implicitly differentiates this lookup tool from the list/search sibling. It does not enumerate all when-not-to-use cases, but the guidance is concrete enough for correct selection.
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.
ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers (beta is currently exactly the same as stable), and the Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research) all scan or price prediction-market opportunities with fuzzy boundaries. Other clusters like memory and subscriptions are clear, but enough overlap remains that an agent can easily misroute a query.
Most names are readable snake_case and many follow a verb_noun shape (list_art_crimes, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but the set also contains noun-phrase names (entity_profile, recent_alerts, pipeworx_feedback, deep_research) and brand-prefixed composites (polymarket_kalshi_spread, ask_pipeworx_beta). This is mixed but still scannable; there is no outright convention chaos.
33 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold and is bloated for a server whose name promises FBI art crimes—only two tools relate to that name. Even treated as a Pipeworx platform, the sprawl makes the tool surface harder to navigate than necessary.
For the nominal art-crime domain, only list_art_crimes and get_art_crime exist, with no category search, statistics, or art-crime alerting, so an agent expecting art-crime workflows hits dead ends. The unrelated Pipeworx functionality is broadly covered, but that does not make the set complete for its stated server purpose.