Get movies that are similar or related to a specific movie (e.g. same series, same theme).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The movie slug (URL-friendly identifier, e.g. 'matrix-1999') | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (1-20, default 8) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It states 'similar or related' with examples, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as result ordering, pagination, or the exact criteria for similarity. The term 'similar' remains somewhat vague.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose and includes useful examples, earning a high score for conciseness and structure.
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 simple two-parameter list tool with a well-described schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of the return format or default behavior, and with no output schema, an agent may need to infer the response shape. This leaves a noticeable gap in completeness.
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 100% for both parameters (slug and limit). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it only reinforces the need for a specific movie. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters well.
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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as movies similar/related to a specific movie, with concrete examples (same series, same theme). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_movies (general search) and get_movie_details (single movie details).
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: when you have a specific movie and want related ones. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
