Retrieve multiple artworks from the Minneapolis Institute of Art in a single request using a list of object IDs.
Fetch multiple artworks by a list of object IDs in a single request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Array of numeric artwork object IDs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'fetch' implying read-only, but gives no details on batch size limits, error handling, response format, or whether the results are ordered as requested. For a batch endpoint, this is a significant gap.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. The brevity works for clarity but not for completeness, so it misses the 'appropriately sized' element. It could be longer to include essential usage notes while remaining focused.
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 batch operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It lacks details on maximum batch size, response ordering, error behavior, and any rate limits. Given the complexity of a batch fetch, this is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly without guessing.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the 'ids' parameter is well documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating that it fetches by IDs. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter semantics.
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 action (Fetch) and resource (multiple artworks by object IDs). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_artwork' by emphasizing the batch nature, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_artwork' for a single artwork. The description implies batch fetching but does not mention that this is the preferred choice for multiple IDs or any exclusions. An agent would need to infer the use case from the name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.