List capability tags in the mcp.film registry, ranked by number of matching servers. Use get_film_capability for the server cluster behind one tag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional substring filter, e.g. 'video', 'voice', or 'timeline'. | |
| min_count | No | Only include capability tags with at least this many servers. Default 1. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the ranking by matching server count adds useful behavioral context. It omits pagination/return details, but for a simple list tool these are minor gaps.
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?
Two sentences with the primary action and ranking behavior front-loaded. The second sentence provides purposeful alternative guidance, so every sentence 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?
For a simple list tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: what is listed, how results are ranked, and which sibling tool to use for details. It is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.
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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. The mention of 'matching servers' loosely relates to min_count but does not go beyond schema descriptions.
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 states the tool lists capability tags in the mcp.film registry and ranks them by server count. This is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling get_film_capability.
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?
It explicitly recommends get_film_capability for the server cluster behind one tag, providing a clear alternative for different granularity. This gives direct when-to-use guidance.
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.
