Artsy Analytics MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s]' data, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or what the output includes (e.g., trends, specific statistics). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function, with no wasted verbiage.

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?

Given the complexity of analytics tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'statistics and trends' include, how data is returned, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with no structured output and multiple similar siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (partnerId and period, including enum values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'publishing statistics' entail or how the period affects results. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 artwork publishing statistics and trends', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on 'artworks published' statistics rather than other metrics like activity, audience, sales, or inquiries. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the most similar sibling 'get_partner_top_artworks', which might also involve artwork data.

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 alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for partner analytics (e.g., get_partner_activity_stats, get_partner_sales_stats, get_partner_top_artworks), there is no indication of when 'artworks published' stats are appropriate versus other metrics, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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