Skip to main content
Glama
mildlydiverting

whitney-museum-mcp-server

Get a Whitney artist

whitney_get_artist
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve an artist's full record from the Whitney Museum, including biography and identifiers, by TMS ID or reference. Choose markdown or JSON output.

Instructions

Fetch one artist's full record, including their biography where the Museum has published one.

Args:

  • id (string): TMS ID or 'T'-prefixed reference

  • response_format ('markdown' | 'json', default 'markdown')

Returns: { record: { id, name, sort_name, dates, birth_year, death_year, in_collection, in_biennial, in_artport, on_view, ulan_id, wikidata_id, biography, page_url } }

The biography is stripped of HTML and truncated. ulan_id (Getty ULAN) and wikidata_id are useful for cross-referencing other sources.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesArtist ID — a TMS ID like '962', or an internal reference prefixed with 'T'
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' for reading, 'json' for machine processingmarkdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
recordYesThe full record
sourceYesAttribution for the data, as the Whitney's terms ask for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the biography is stripped of HTML and truncated, and it clarifies that ulan_id and wikidata_id are useful for cross-referencing. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with an 'Args' and 'Returns' section, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence earns its place, and it avoids redundant filler. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, and the description complements it with clarification on biography formatting and cross-referencing utility. For a read-only get-by-id operation, nothing essential is missing. The agent has enough to invoke it correctly without further investigation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the id format ('TMS ID or 'T'-prefixed reference') and the response_format defaults, which match the schema. It does not add new semantic detail about parameters beyond what the schema already specifies, so it neither compensates nor falls short.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Fetch one artist's full record') on a precise resource, and the subject matter (Whitney artist) distinguishes it from sibling tools like whitney_get_artwork or whitney_get_exhibition. It also mentions the biography inclusion, which sets expectations. This is far beyond a tautology.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes clear it is for retrieving a single artist by ID, which implies it should not be used for searching (where whitney_search_artists would be appropriate). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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