Get the full mcp.film entry for one server by slug: description, install commands, auth requirements, sample tools, links, and field notes (caveats).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Server slug, e.g. 'martini' or 'elevenlabs' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly describes what the tool returns but does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or the fact that it likely performs a live fetch from mcp.film. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is acceptable 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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists the key contents with commas. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundant or filler text.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the major fields returned (description, install commands, auth requirements, sample tools, links, field notes). It does not mention error behaviors or response format, but for a simple single-parameter get tool, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what to expect.
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 schema already fully documents the slug parameter with 100% coverage including an example. The description merely repeats 'by slug' without adding formatting or constraints beyond what the schema shows, so it provides no additional semantic value beyond 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 the specific verb 'Get' with the exact resource 'full mcp.film entry for one server by slug', and explicitly enumerates the contents (description, install commands, auth requirements, sample tools, links, field notes). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_install_config or get_film_capability, which target narrower aspects.
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 clearly indicates that this tool is for retrieving the complete entry for a single server, implying it should be used when full details are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the 'full entry' phrasing provides clear context.
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.
