searchSearch the Harvard Art Museums collection by keyword. Returns matching items with ids (pass an id to object), titles, creators, dates and image links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based, default 1). | |
| limit | No | Max results (1-100, default 20). | |
| query | Yes | Keyword(s), e.g. "rembrandt", "ceramics", "moon landing". | |
| _apiKey | No | Harvard Art Museums API key (auto-injected by the platform; or pass your own). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-harvard-art-api-key",
+ "query": "rembrandt"
+ },
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-harvard-art-api-key",
+ "limit": 50,
+ "page": 1,
+ "query": "ceramics"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the return format and mentioning that an id can be passed to the 'object' tool, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and efficiently conveys key return details with 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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately lists return fields (ids, titles, creators, dates, image links) and mentions the page/limit parameters. Missing details about empty results or error handling, but sufficient for a simple search tool.
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 descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is adequate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Harvard Art Museums collection'), and explicitly states the return fields (ids, titles, creators, dates, image links). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search_within'.
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 for keyword searches but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_within' or what to avoid. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.
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.