Returns the complete set of public editorial term vocabularies accepted by the term discovery endpoint, with the content types each taxonomy filters. Use rottentomatoes_editorial_terms to retrieve rotten Tomatoes editorial taxonomy terms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is the 'complete set' (implying no pagination) and that each taxonomy is annotated with the content types it filters, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or caching. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is modest added value.
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 that are front-loaded with what is returned and then the sibling routing. Slightly redundant in naming the sibling's full resource again, but overall efficient with 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 shape needn't be explained) and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies scope, completeness, and sibling routing. It is complete enough for a simple zero-parameter lister, with only minor gaps around freshness or auth.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema burden is nil and the baseline of 4 applies. The description makes clear there is no input to supply, and no parameter semantics are needed.
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 clear verb ('Returns') and resource (the complete set of public editorial term vocabularies), and notes it includes the content types each taxonomy filters. It also names the sibling rottentomatoes_editorial_terms, letting an agent distinguish the two. The phrase 'accepted by the term discovery endpoint' is a little meta, keeping it just short of fully self-contained.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to rottentomatoes_editorial_terms to retrieve the actual taxonomy terms, implying this tool is for listing the vocabularies rather than fetching terms. That is a clear alternative pointer, but it stops short of stating when each should be preferred or any prerequisites.
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.
