Get a chronological timeline of art movements, with optional start and end year filters, to place generative design styles in historical context.
Get a chronological timeline of art movements, optionally filtered by year range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End year filter (e.g. 1950) | |
| from | No | Start year filter (e.g. 1850) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses ordering ('chronological') and that filtering is optional, but says nothing about what each entry contains, whether the full timeline is returned or paginated, or defaults when from/to are omitted.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose and the optional filter are both stated in minimal space.
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 simple two-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should say something about the shape of the returned timeline. As written, an agent knows what it queries but not what it gets back.
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 both 'from' and 'to' documented with examples in the schema. The description only restates the year-range filtering concept and adds no semantics (inclusivity, defaults, direction) beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a chronological timeline of art movements'), which is far more informative than the bare name. However, it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like design_get_style, design_search_styles, or design_list_recipes, so an agent must infer which one to reach for.
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 phrase 'optionally filtered by year range' implies the tool is usable with or without filters, which is mild usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools that overlap with style lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.