列出 2026–2027 重點電影、影集、動畫、劇場版，含首次公開日、上映日、平台、狀態；可依類型、平台、狀態、日期篩選。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_titles"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| platform | No | ||
| upcoming | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not disclose return format, pagination, result ordering, or whether 'upcoming' filtering interacts with the date range. For a list tool with 6 params and no annotations, this is a notable gap.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then lists filters. No waste, though enums and parameter mapping could be tightened.
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?
With 6 params, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations or output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the 'upcoming' parameter, does not clarify enum values for type/status, and does not describe the return shape or behavior.
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 0%, so the description should compensate. It mentions filter axes at a high level (類型、平台、狀態、日期) but does not map them to specific parameters, does not explain the from/to semantics, and never mentions the 'upcoming' boolean at all.
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 states a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (電影、影集、動畫、劇場版) with scope (2026–2027). It distinguishes itself from get_title/lookup_any_title by being a list operation, but does not explicitly name those siblings.
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 implies usage by enumerating filter axes (類型、平台、狀態、日期), which signals this is for browsing/filtering. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. get_title, lookup_any_title, or release_calendar.
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.