List paginated Rotten Tomatoes editorial taxonomy terms with search, ordering, and assignment filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| post | No | ||
| slug | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| parent | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| exclude | No | ||
| include | No | ||
| orderby | No | ||
| taxonomy | Yes | ||
| hide_empty | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are paginated, but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or the shape/size of the term list, so added value beyond annotations is modest.
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?
One compact sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the parameter surface it must support.
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?
A 13-parameter, filter-heavy listing tool with 0% schema description coverage needs more explanation than a single sentence provides. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the meaning of the filter parameters and how they combine is absent.
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 0% across 13 parameters, so the schema supplies no meaning at all. The phrase 'search, ordering, and assignment filters' loosely gestures at search/order/orderby and include/exclude, but does not explain what taxonomy, parent, slug, post, hide_empty, or offset do, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.
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?
States a specific verb (List), resource (Rotten Tomatoes editorial taxonomy terms), and scope (paginated, with filters). It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like rottentomatoes_editorial_taxonomies or rottentomatoes_editorial_search, so an agent cannot fully route between them from this text alone.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as rottentomatoes_editorial_taxonomies or rottentomatoes_editorial_search. Usage is only weakly implied by the mention of search/ordering/assignment filters.
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.
