Retrieve a Swedish portrait's metadata, transcribed biography, book citation, vital statistics, and Genney-ready citation snippet using its unique portrait ID.
Retrieve comprehensive metadata, transcribed biography, book citation, vital statistics, and Genney-ready citation snippet for a specific portrait ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| portraitId | Yes | The unique portrait identifier (e.g. "sj9PGLAlnmUAAAAAABlg4w") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Retrieve' signals a read-only operation, and the description discloses the returned content categories, including the Genney citation format. It does not cover error/null behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple get-by-ID tool.
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?
One compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action and the full set of returned data efficiently. Every phrase adds useful signal.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the key, and the returned content. It could explicitly route users to search-portraits when no ID is known, but that is not essential for correct invocation.
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 single parameter portraitId is already fully described in the input schema with an example, and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?
The description uses a specific verb, 'Retrieve,' and a specific resource, 'portrait details,' keyed by a portrait ID. It also enumerates the payload (metadata, biography, citation, vital statistics, Genney-ready snippet), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get-portrait-image tool.
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 makes clear it applies to a specific known portraitId and is meant for fetching detail records. It does not explicitly state when to use search-portraits instead or exclude image retrieval, but the intended context is implied well enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.