get_by_ratingGet items filtered by user rating range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_rating | No | Maximum rating (0.5-5, half-star increments) | |
| media_type | Yes | Type of media | |
| min_rating | No | Minimum rating (0.5-5, half-star increments) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| query | No | ||
| total | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / media_type / enumPrevious value: -[
- "book",
- "movie",
- "album",
- "show",
- "anime"
-]New value: +[
+ "book",
+ "movie",
+ "album",
+ "show",
+ "anime",
+ "podcast",
+ "game",
+ "manga"
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Items from the user's own library matching the request.",
+ "properties": {
+ "items": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "cover_url": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "creator": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "genres": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "array",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "media_type": {
+ "enum": [
+ "book",
+ "movie",
+ "album",
+ "show",
+ "anime",
+ "podcast",
+ "game",
+ "manga"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "rating": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "summary": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "themes": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "array",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "year": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "title",
+ "media_type"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "query": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "items"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / max_rating / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum rating (1-5)"New value: +"Maximum rating (0.5-5, half-star increments)"Input schema / properties / max_rating / minimumPrevious value: -1New value: +0.5Input schema / properties / max_rating / multipleOfAdded value: +0.5Input schema / properties / min_rating / descriptionPrevious value: -"Minimum rating (1-5)"New value: +"Minimum rating (0.5-5, half-star increments)"Input schema / properties / min_rating / minimumPrevious value: -1New value: +0.5Input schema / properties / min_rating / multipleOfAdded value: +0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whose ratings are matched, what ordering is returned, whether results are paginated, or how an omitted min/max bounds the range.
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; nothing wastes space. Its brevity is efficient but tips into under-specification rather than crispness.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a three-parameter filtered-list tool with many sibling retrieval tools, the description omits range-default behavior and sibling disambiguation, which the agent would need to call it confidently.
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 coverage is 100%, with enum values, ranges and half-star increments already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the notion that the range is a 'user rating,' and says nothing about the required media_type or the open-ended behavior when only one bound is supplied.
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: retrieve items filtered by a user rating range. It is clear enough on its own, but it never contrasts itself with near-neighbors like get_by_status or search_library, leaving the boundary to be inferred from the name alone.
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 on when to pick this over get_by_status (status-based retrieval) or search_library (broader filtering), and no mention of prerequisites. The agent has to guess which retrieval tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.