Search the Art Institute of Chicago collection by keyword to find matching artworks and return a limited set of results.
Search artworks at the Art Institute of Chicago by keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 10, max 50). | |
| query | Yes | Search term (e.g. monet, sunflowers, impressionism). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: no mention of result caps/pagination (only the schema's limit hints at it), no ordering, no note that remote API failures or empty result sets are possible.
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; every word carries information. Brevity is not the problem here — missing content is.
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 with full annotations and complete schema docs, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema, the description could have stated the shape of results (list of artwork summaries requiring artic_get_artwork for detail), which is the main thing an agent still has to guess.
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% — both query and limit are documented with examples and bounds. The description repeats the keyword concept but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, 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 (search), resource (artworks), and scoping constraint (by keyword) along with the source institution. It is distinguishable from artic_get_artwork by the search-vs-fetch distinction, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 statement of when to use this versus artic_get_artwork, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The 'by keyword' phrase implies lookup-style usage, but the agent must infer that it should search first and then fetch details by ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.