get_film_capabilityGet 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1-100. Default 20. | |
| offset | No | Start index for paging; use next_offset from the previous call. | |
| capability | Yes | Exact capability tag. | |
| remote_only | No | Only hosted remote MCPs. | |
| official_only | No | Only vendor-maintained servers. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Page size, 1-100. Default 20.",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Start index for paging; use next_offset from the previous call.",
+ "type": "number"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the word 'ranked' (results are ordered by some ranking) without saying what the ranking is based on, and says nothing about paging behavior beyond what the schema documents.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the most useful content (what the tool returns, plus example inputs) comes first. It is arguably slightly under-specified rather than over-long.
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 read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the core, but it omits two things an agent needs: where to get valid capability tags (list_film_capabilities) and what 'ranked' actually means for the returned cluster.
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 baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by supplying concrete example capability values (text-to-video, tts, voice-cloning, upscaling), which effectively act as an informal enum where the schema has none. It still doesn't clarify whether tags are case-sensitive or free-form.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (get the ranked server cluster for one capability tag) and enumerates concrete example tags, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_film_capabilities, which an agent could easily mistake for the same lookup.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'one capability tag' hints at single-tag lookup versus a listing tool, but no when-to-use/when-not guidance or explicit pointer to list_film_capabilities for discovering valid tags is given. With 15 siblings, some explicit routing would materially help.
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.