Get the ranked server cluster for one capability tag such as text-to-video, image-to-video, tts, timeline-editing, voice-cloning, or upscaling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| capability | Yes | Exact capability tag. | |
| remote_only | No | Only hosted remote MCPs. | |
| official_only | No | Only vendor-maintained servers. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the output is a 'ranked server cluster' and that it takes a single capability tag, but it does not explain what 'ranked' means, the structure of the cluster, or any potential side effects or prerequisites. This is adequate 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the verb and resource, then provides useful examples, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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 getter with full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It gives enough context to invoke the tool correctly, but the lack of an output schema means the response format is not explained. This is a minor gap given the tool's straightforward purpose.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating example capability tags, which clarifies the 'capability' parameter, but it does not elaborate on 'remote_only' or 'official_only' beyond their schema descriptions. Overall, it meets but does not exceed the baseline.
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 and resource ('Get the ranked server cluster') and scopes it to a single capability tag with concrete examples. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_film_capabilities or search_film_mcps, which have broader or different purposes.
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 when to use the tool (when you need a ranked cluster for one specific tag) and provides examples of valid tags. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide 'when not to use' guidance, making it clear but not exhaustive.
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.
