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 full burden. It mentions 'most viewed artworks with ranking data', hinting at read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, 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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without redundancy. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the core purpose. It lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational constraints, which are needed for full context. However, for a simple read operation with good schema coverage, it's 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters like 'limit', 'partnerId', and 'period'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying ranking is based on views over a time period, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource 'partner's most viewed artworks with ranking data', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on top artworks with ranking, unlike general stats or time-series tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_partner_top_content', which might be a close alternative.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_partner_top_content' or other analytics siblings. The description implies usage for ranking data but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving the agent to infer 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.