Retrieve artist or constituent details by ID, including Wikidata identifier, Wikipedia biography link, and museum IDs from Art Institute of Chicago, MoMA, and SAAM.
Look up artist or constituent information by ID, including Wikidata identifier, Wikipedia biography link, and IDs in other major museums (Art Institute of Chicago, MoMA, SAAM).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Constituent or artist person ID (e.g., 1 for Anthony Caponi). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read-only lookup and usefully lists returned fields (Wikidata, Wikipedia biography link, museum IDs). However, it does not mention error behavior, missing data, or whether external identifiers are always present.
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 one front-loaded sentence containing only essential information: action, resource, lookup key, and notable return contents. There is no fluff or repetition.
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?
This is a low-complexity tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description adequately covers what the tool returns and when to call it, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.
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?
The schema already fully documents the single id parameter with type and an example, so the description adds no additional semantic value. With 100% schema description coverage, 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 uses a specific verb ('Look up'), names the resource ('artist or constituent information'), and specifies the lookup key (ID). It also lists concrete content returned, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling artwork-focused tools.
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 clearly communicates the usage context: call this when you need person/constituent data by ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are all artwork operations, so the distinction is easy for an agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.