get_moviesReturns current movie showings at Sedona-area theaters (Mary D. Fisher Theatre, Harkins Sedona 6, and others).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| venues | Yes | ||
| updated | Yes | ||
| showings | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / venues / items / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -{}Output schema / properties / venues / items / typeRemoved value: -"object"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "showings": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "updated": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "venues": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "updated",
+ "venues",
+ "showings"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds value by specifying geographic scope and that showings are current, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous words. Every part earns its place.
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 read-only tool with no parameters and a present output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, its scope, and key details (theater names). No gaps.
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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add param info, and it doesn't. Baseline score of 4 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?
Description clearly states it returns current movie showings at Sedona-area theaters, naming specific venues. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_events or get_concerts, which cover different content types.
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 explicitly defines the context (Sedona-area movie showings) but does not include when-not-to-use or mention alternative tools. However, the specificity alone guides selection among siblings.
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.