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. While it mentions 'detailed pageview analytics' and 'time series support,' it fails to describe important behavioral aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication or permissions are required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format the analytics data returns. For an analytics tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could potentially be more front-loaded with the most critical information about when to use this versus sibling tools.

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 an analytics tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed pageview analytics' includes, how the modern schema differs from other schemas, what the output format looks like, or any behavioral constraints. Given the rich sibling tool ecosystem, more context is needed to help an agent choose and use this tool effectively.

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 mentions 'time series support' which relates to the 'includeTimeSeries' and 'cumulative' parameters, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3 - the schema already documents all parameters well, and the description provides only marginal additional value.

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 ('Get detailed pageview analytics') and resource ('modern pageview schema'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many sibling analytics tools, particularly those like 'get_partner_time_series_analytics' or 'get_partner_audience_stats' that might also provide pageview-related 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 mentions 'time series support' which implies a use case for temporal analysis, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its 12 sibling analytics tools. There's no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred versus others like 'get_partner_complete_analytics' or 'query_analytics_custom'.

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