Artsy Analytics MCP Server

Does 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 this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or whether it returns aggregated vs. raw data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 read-only analytics tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important context. Without annotations or output schema, it should explain more about what the analytics include, how data is returned, and when to choose this over sibling tools. The description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain what 'partner activity analytics' means in relation to the parameters, provide examples of partner IDs, or clarify the time period options. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'partner activity analytics', specifying the types of analytics included (pageviews, artwork views, unique visitors). It distinguishes from some siblings by focusing on general activity stats rather than specific aspects like sales or inquiries, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all alternatives like 'get_partner_complete_analytics'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_partner_complete_analytics' or 'get_partner_audience_stats', leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.