Fetch public IMDb person metadata and known-for title rows. Pass exactly one name id (nm...) or person URL. Use imdb_name_credits for filmography sections or imdb_name_awards for awards and nominations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | IMDb name id | |
| url | No | Absolute https://www.imdb.com/name/<id>/ URL |
| 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.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"IMDb name id"Input schema / properties / url / descriptionAdded value: +"Absolute https://www.imdb.com/name/<id>/ URL"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 useful context beyond that: it confirms the data is 'public' (implying no auth) and adds the exactly-one-input constraint, which the schema does not enforce. It does not discuss rate limits or response shape, but with annotations present the bar is lower.
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, front-loaded with purpose followed by the input rule and sibling routing. Every clause carries information; no filler.
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 values need not be explained. The description fully covers what the tool returns at a high level, when to prefer siblings, and the input constraint, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.
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%, so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that exactly one of id or url should be supplied, a mutual-exclusivity rule the schema does not express.
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 (Fetch) and resource (IMDb person metadata and known-for title rows), and explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools. An agent can distinguish this from imdb_name_credits and imdb_name_awards without opening any schema.
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?
Names the alternatives explicitly (imdb_name_credits for filmography, imdb_name_awards for awards) along with the condition that selects each. It also states the input selection rule ('Pass exactly one name id or person URL'). Nothing is left to inference.
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.