Search IMDB for movies and TV shows. Returns titles, ratings, cast. Args: query: Movie or show title (e.g. 'Inception') max_results: Max results (default 10)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
ReadOnlyHint and openWorldHint are already set, so the safety profile is known. The description adds return fields and the default for max_results, but does not disclose potential behavior such as no-result handling, rate limits, or external API dependency. This is acceptable but not rich.
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 sentence plus a two-parameter argument list; every element earns its place. The purpose is front-loaded and the structure is easy to scan.
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 only two simple params, no output schema, and annotations present, the description provides essential information: search scope, return fields, and parameter semantics. It could mention error/edge behavior but is otherwise complete for a basic search tool.
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 schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates: query is defined as 'Movie or show title' with the example 'Inception', and max_results is defined as 'Max results (default 10)'. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema types.
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 begins with 'Search IMDB for movies and TV shows' – a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_podcasts and youtube_transcript. It also names return content (titles, ratings, cast), reinforcing the purpose.
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 phrase 'for movies and TV shows' defines the applicable scope and implicitly distinguishes this from podcasts and transcript tools. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references, but the domain separation is clear.
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.
Each tool targets a completely different media type: IMDB for movies/TV, podcasts for audio episodes, and YouTube for transcripts. There is no functional overlap between them.
The naming convention is mixed: 'imdb_search' uses object-verb, 'search_podcasts' uses verb-object, and 'youtube_transcript' uses noun-noun without a verb. This creates minor inconsistency, though all names are still readable.
With only 3 tools, the server sits at the borderline of being too thin. Each tool is distinct, but the small number feels sparse for a media-oriented server.
The server name suggests a YouTube media focus, yet it lacks basic YouTube operations like video search or channel details. The inclusion of IMDB and podcasts is unrelated, leaving significant gaps in the advertised scope.