title_detailFetch full metadata for a Watchmode title by title_id: title, year, genres, plot, runtime, user rating, cast, and optionally streaming sources via append_to_response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title_id | Yes | ||
| append_to_response | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "title_id": "12345"
+ },
+ {
+ "append_to_response": "sources,seasons",
+ "title_id": "12345"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Detailed information about a specific title",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about returned data fields but no new behavioral traits beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations.
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?
Single sentence, 25 words, front-loaded with key action and result. No redundant information.
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 read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential data returned. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's capability.
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 0%, so description should explain parameter meaning. It mentions title_id implicitly and append_to_response with 'optionally streaming sources', but does not specify title_id format or append_to_response valid values (e.g., 'sources,seasons' from examples). This leaves ambiguity for the agent.
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 it fetches full metadata for a Watchmode title by title_id, listing key fields. It distinguishes from siblings like title_search and title_sources by focusing on a single title's complete metadata.
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?
Description implies use when you have a title_id and need full metadata, with optional streaming sources. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide.
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.