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 provided, so description handles burden. Discloses data returned (session times, format, language) and prerequisite. Does not mention rate limits, pagination, or read-only nature, but acceptable for a simple query.
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, no fluff, front-loaded information. Every word adds value.
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 2-param tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, parameters, prerequisite, and return format. Fully adequate.
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%, but description adds value: explains date defaults today BRT, movie_slug sourced from list_movies. Clarifies usage beyond 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?
Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'showtimes', and scope 'specific movie at cinemas in this neighborhood, for a given date'. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying movie and location context.
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?
Explicitly mentions prerequisite 'movies_enabled on this site'. Implies usage after list_movies provides slug. Could be improved by contrasting with get_availability or others, but adequate.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose, even among similar actions like booking, reservation, and ticket purchase—their descriptions clarify the domain and flow. No two tools could reasonably be confused.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_blog_posts). There are no deviations or mixed conventions.
At 28 tools, the surface is larger than ideal for a single server, but each tool covers a distinct feature of the neighborhood directory (bookings, events, store, etc.). It borders on heavy but is still manageable for an agent.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of browsing and acting on a neighborhood directory: search, details, reviews, menus, events, booking, reservations, store, loyalty, and more. No obvious gaps exist for the intended use case.