Fetch the full public body and structured links, images, or video embeds for one Rotten Tomatoes editorial item. Use rottentomatoes_editorial_content for its structured content blocks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Discovered Editorial content path |
| 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 / path / descriptionAdded value: +"Discovered Editorial content path"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds that the item's body is 'public' and enumerates the embedded media/link types returned, which is mild behavioral context, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or missing-item behavior. With annotations carrying the heavy lifting and an output schema documenting the return, 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, no waste: the capability and payload are front-loaded, and the sibling routing follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.
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, and annotations cover safety, leaving little for the description to carry. It is nearly complete, with only mild ambiguity about how an agent is expected to obtain a valid 'path' before calling.
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 the single 'path' parameter is documented as a discovered Editorial content path. The description only implies that the path identifies one editorial item, adding nothing about format or how the path is discovered, so the schema does the work and baseline 3 applies.
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), resource (one Rotten Tomatoes editorial item), and payload scope (full public body plus links, images, or video embeds). The distinction from the sibling is explicit, naming rottentomatoes_editorial_content and contrasting 'body/media' against 'structured content blocks', so an agent can choose between the two without opening either 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?
The second sentence names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it (structured content blocks), which is explicit routing guidance. It stops short of when-not-to-use or any prerequisite for the 'path' input, so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.
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.