list_departmentsList The Met's curatorial departments (e.g. European Paintings, Egyptian Art, Arms and Armor) with their department IDs, usable to scope searches. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds context beyond annotations: explains return value (department IDs) and their purpose. Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive; description does not contradict and adds value.
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, front-loaded with action and object, no unnecessary 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 zero-parameter, simple listing tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how it can be used.
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 baseline is 4. Description explains what the tool returns (department IDs) and their use, adding meaning beyond the empty 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 specifically states it lists curatorial departments with their IDs, gives concrete examples (European Paintings, Egyptian Art), and notes it's keyless. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that search or perform other actions.
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?
Implies usage for scoping searches with 'usable to scope searches' and mentions 'keyless', but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. No exclusion or comparison with sibling tools.
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.
The server mixes two Met-specific tools (get_artwork, search_artworks) with a large set of generic Pipeworx tools (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, etc.), making it unclear which tools actually relate to the Met museum. Agents will struggle to distinguish the domain-specific tools from the general data tools.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: Met-specific tools use get_/search_/list_ prefixes, while Pipeworx tools use diverse patterns (ask_, bet_, compare_, discover_) and some use underscores while others lack verbs. The inconsistency increases cognitive load.
At 29 tools, the count is high but not unreasonable for a combined server. However, only 3 tools are Met-specific, so the count feels inflated by unrelated tools. A more focused Met server would have fewer tools.
For a Met museum server, the tool surface is severely limited: only search, get by ID, and list departments. Missing operations like filtering by artist, retrieving related objects, or accessing collection highlights. The domain coverage is incomplete.