List cast and crew credits for a movie by slug (for example shawshank-redemption).
Returns cast and crew members with names, roles, character names, and profile links where available.
Cost = 5 tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| movie_slug | Yes | Movie slug (for example shawshank-redemption). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cast | No | Cast and crew credits for the movie. | |
| slug | No | Movie slug. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return content (names, roles, character names, profile links) and the token cost, but it lacks any mention of access requirements, error handling, pagination, or side effects. Since the tool is read-only, that is implied but not explicitly stated.
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 extremely concise and well-structured. It opens with the primary purpose, outlines the return data, and includes a cost note. There is no wasted words or redundant filler.
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?
Given the low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what is returned and the cost, and its return-value details are explicitly specified. No additional information is necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (movie_slug), and the schema already includes the same example ('shawshank-redemption'). The description repeats this example but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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'), a specific resource ('cast and crew credits'), and a qualification ('for a movie by slug'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool rotten-tomatoes.tv_show_cast_and_crew by explicitly noting it's for movies.
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 makes the context clear: use this tool to fetch movie cast and crew by providing a movie slug. It provides an example slug ('shawshank-redemption'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for TV shows, use the sibling tool).
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.
