List mcp.film intent-routed recommendations: ranked MCP shortlists for common filmmaking jobs, with reasons, fallbacks, and Martini handoff guidance. Use get_film_recommendation for full detail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional free-text search over titles, summaries, best_for text, tags, server names, and Martini handoff guidance. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It explains the behavior of returning 'ranked MCP shortlists' and 'reasons, fallbacks, and Martini handoff guidance', but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe any side effects, pagination, or ordering details beyond what is implicit in 'ranked'.
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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the tool's purpose and content, and the second sentence provides a clean pointer to the alternative tool. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
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 description covers the purpose, result contents (ranked shortlists, reasons, fallbacks, handoff guidance), and directs users to get_film_recommendation for more detail. Since there is no output schema, it adequately describes what to expect, though it does not mention pagination or the exact format of results, which would improve completeness.
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 only parameter 'query' is fully described in the schema with a coverage of 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific information, but the schema already provides comprehensive meaning for the optional free-text search.
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's function with a specific verb 'List' and resource 'mcp.film intent-routed recommendations', adding details about ranked shortlists, reasons, fallbacks, and Martini handoff guidance. It also differentiates from the sibling get_film_recommendation by indicating that tool provides full detail.
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 gives clear context: it lists recommendations for common filmmaking jobs. It provides an explicit alternative with 'Use get_film_recommendation for full detail', but does not fully enumerate exclusions or when not to use this tool versus other siblings like search_film_mcps or recommend_film_mcps.
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.
