Get showtimes for a specific movie at cinemas in this neighborhood, for a given date. Returns each cinema with session times, format (e.g. "Laser", "3D"), and language (Dublado/Legendado). Requires movies_enabled on this site.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today (BRT). | |
| movie_slug | Yes | Movie slug from list_movies (e.g. "o-corvo-1016084"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only and returns specific fields, and mentions a prerequisite. It does not address rate limits or authorization, but 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?
The description is concise with three sentences, front-loading the main action and providing necessary details without 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return format and prerequisite, making it complete for an agent to use.
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% with descriptions. The description adds value by noting that date defaults to today in BRT and that movie_slug comes from list_movies, which clarifies usage beyond the schema.
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 gets showtimes for a specific movie and date, with specific output details (cinema, session times, format, language). It distinguishes from sibling list_movies which only lists 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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires movies_enabled on this site') and implies usage for retrieving showtimes, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., create_booking, create_checkout, request_reservation, reserve_event_tickets, rsvp_event all differ in purpose). Even similar-sounding tools like search_places and list_categories serve complementary roles (search vs taxonomy). No ambiguity.
All 28 tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_blog_posts). No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
28 tools is above the typical 3-15 range but appropriate for the comprehensive scope of a neighborhood directory covering multiple Wix integrations (bookings, events, store, restaurants, etc.). Slightly heavy but well-scoped.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of a neighborhood directory: search, details, reviews, menus, booking, events, movies, offers, forms, FAQs, loyalty, etc. No obvious gaps; each domain has create/read/update/delete where applicable.