Get the mcp.film operating pulse: catalog freshness, demand signals, curator agenda, Martini growth checks, and machine-readable surfaces. Use this before deciding what to update next.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | No | Optional top-level pulse section. Default all. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and lists the returned content, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness. Given the read-only implication, it provides moderate transparency.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes a usage hint. Every word 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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers what the tool does and when to use it, though it doesn't elaborate on return format. This is adequate for the tool's complexity.
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 single 'section' parameter is fully described in the schema with enum values and default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies due to 100% schema 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 clearly specifies the tool retrieves the mcp.film operating pulse and enumerates its key components (catalog freshness, demand signals, curator agenda, Martini growth checks, machine-readable surfaces). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific capabilities, MCPs, or playbooks.
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 instructs 'Use this before deciding what to update next', providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for a get-style tool.
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.
Most tools target distinct entities (capabilities, playbooks, recommendations, servers, install configs). The only potential confusion is between plan_film_stack and recommend_film_mcps, but their descriptions clarify different scopes: full pipeline vs intent-routed brief.
All tools follow a consistent verb-first snake_case pattern: get_ for singular resources, list_ for plural, plus search_, plan_, recommend_, and submit_. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
15 tools is at the upper end of the ideal range but each earns its place: search, retrieval, listing, planning, recommendation, install config, and submission. No redundant tools.
Covers the full directory lifecycle: discovery, retrieval, contextual listings, planning, recommendations, install config generation, and submission. Minor gap: there's no explicit list-all-servers endpoint, but search_film_mcps can fulfill that role.
