Search Rotten Tomatoes' movie and TV title catalog by title or keyword. Returns matching title cards with critic and audience scores when available; use this to discover films and series before fetching a specific title's details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| 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 'title cards with critic and audience scores when available,' which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about pagination, result caps, or ranking of matches.
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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the workflow guidance second. Nothing is redundant or wasted.
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?
An output schema exists (so return structure needn't be spelled out) and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies purpose, discovery-stage role, and rough return content, leaving only parameter-level detail (limit) and pagination unaddressed.
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% and there are 2 parameters. The description conveys that the query accepts 'title or keyword', which clarifies the required param, but it never explains the optional 'limit' parameter anywhere. With zero structured coverage, the description fails to compensate for half the parameters.
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 (Search) and resource ('Rotten Tomatoes' movie and TV title catalog'), and scopes it to both movies and TV, which separates it from the browse-specific siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling tool explicitly, so it earns a solid 4 rather than a 5.
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?
Provides clear usage context: 'use this to discover films and series before fetching a specific title's details,' which tells the agent this is the discovery/first-step tool. It gives no explicit when-not or named alternative tool, so it lands at 4.
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.
