get_objectGet the full record for a single V&A object by its system number (e.g. "O72610", as returned by search_objects). Returns title, maker, object type, materials, description, date, place, dimensions, and a usable image URL. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | V&A system number, e.g. "O72610". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds value by listing specific return fields like title, maker, and image URL, and notes 'Keyless' indicating no authentication needed.
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, no filler. All information is useful and front-loaded.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, input format, and return content sufficiently.
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?
Only one parameter 'id'. Description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining it should be a system number from search_objects and provides an example.
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 verb 'Get', resource 'full record for a single V&A object', and method of identification 'by its system number'. It also gives an example format and distinguishes from sibling search_objects.
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 that search_objects should be used first to obtain the system number ('as returned by search_objects'). No explicit when-not or alternatives beyond that but context is clear.
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.
Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is notable overlap between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded (same underlying data query, different answer modes), and multiple polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) can confuse agents about which to use for a given betting query. Memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are clear, but the mix of museum, financial, and prediction market tools under one server increases ambiguity.
All tool names use snake_case consistently, but the naming pattern is inconsistent: some start with a verb (search_objects, list_subscriptions, remember) while others start with a noun or modifier (ai_visibility_check, entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage). The 'ask_' prefix is used twice, but overall there is no single predictable convention like verb_noun across the set.
29 tools is high but not excessive for a general-purpose data server. However, the server is named 'Va Museum' which implies a narrow domain, making the count seem bloated. The set includes many tools unrelated to a museum (e.g., prediction markets, SEC filings), so the count is appropriate only if the server's actual scope is broad and multi-domain.
For a museum-focused server, the tool surface is severely incomplete, with only two museum-specific tools (search_objects, get_object) out of 29. Even as a general-purpose server, it lacks tools for common operations like updating or deleting resources, and the coverage of domains (e.g., no tool for creating or managing user data) feels ad hoc rather than systematically complete.