Fetch normalized IMDb goofs for a title by providing its IMDb ID or URL.
IMDb title goofs. Returns normalized public IMDb goof rows for a title. Pass exactly one of id or url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | IMDb title id | |
| url | No | Absolute https://www.imdb.com/title/<id>/ URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Returns normalized public IMDb goof rows', which implies a read operation, but does not detail any behavioral aspects such as rate limits, pagination, or the possibility of no results. The description is minimal and lacks transparency about the tool's behavior beyond its output.
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?
The description is two sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, the second provides a clear usage rule. Every word is necessary, and the information is front-loaded. No redundancy or wasted text.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does and how to call it, but does not describe the format of the returned goof rows or any edge cases. For a simple lookup tool, this may suffice, but more detail would improve completeness.
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 schema provides descriptions for both parameters (id and url), so baseline coverage is 100%. The description adds value by clarifying that exactly one should be used, which is not enforced by the schema. This mutual exclusivity guidance is a meaningful addition beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the purpose: it returns IMDb goof rows for a title. The verb 'Returns' and the resource 'normalized public IMDb goof rows' are specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like imdb_title_awards or imdb_title_credits by focusing specifically on goofs.
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 description explicitly states to pass exactly one of `id` or `url`, which is a clear usage instruction. However, it does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The context of sibling tools implies its specific purpose, but no exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.