Fetch public IMDb goof rows describing reported mistakes in a title. Pass exactly one title id (tt...) or title URL. Use imdb_title_trivia for background facts or imdb_title_quotes for dialogue excerpts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | IMDb title id | |
| url | No | Absolute https://www.imdb.com/title/<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 title id"Input schema / properties / url / descriptionAdded value: +"Absolute https://www.imdb.com/title/<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 that the rows are 'public' (implying no auth), but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or ordering. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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: purpose first, then the input constraint and the alternative routing. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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 described. Purpose, the one-of input rule, and sibling routing are all present; nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.
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% and both params are optional, so the mutual-exclusivity requirement ('exactly one' of id or url) and the 'tt...' id format are genuine additions beyond the schema, which shows neither constraint. Not a 5 only because no further syntax detail is offered.
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 goof rows / reported mistakes in a title). It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (trivia, quotes), so an agent can disambiguate without opening a 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?
Gives the exact input rule ('Pass exactly one title id (tt...) or title URL') and names the conditions that select the alternatives — trivia for background facts, quotes for dialogue. Both when-to-use and alternatives are covered.
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.