Search the Blu-ray movie database by title, director, actor, or keywords.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (1-25, default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Search query (movie title, director, actor, or keywords) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum results (1-25, default 10)"New value: +"Maximum number of results (1-25, default 10)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search fields and the database scope, which is useful, but it does not mention result format, ordering, pagination, or explicitly confirm a non-mutating read operation. The word 'search' implies a read-only query, but deeper behavioral context is missing.
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 front-loaded sentence that clearly states the verb, resource, and search fields. It contains no redundant filler or vague phrasing, making it appropriately concise.
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 search tool with two fully described parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not clarify what the returned results look like (e.g., movie details, IDs) or how the limit parameter affects output. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent, though the basic purpose is clear.
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%, and the description repeats some of the query field's meaning but adds no new detail about the 'limit' parameter or value formatting. Thus, the description contributes minimal additional semantic value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score for full coverage.
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 a specific verb ('search') and clearly identifies the resource ('Blu-ray movie database') and search fields (title, director, actor, keywords). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_movies or get_movie_details by indicating a query-based lookup across multiple access points.
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 the tool should be used when searching by movie title, director, actor, or keyword. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives like browse_by_tag or browse_movies, so only implied usage guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.