Fetch IMDb user reviews for a title by ID or URL. Returns public review rows, up to 20 per call, defaulting to 10.
IMDb title user reviews. Returns public IMDb user review rows. Limit defaults to 10 and clamps to 20. 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 | |
| limit | No | Rows to return, default 10, max 20 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully signals the operation is a public read ('Returns public IMDb user review rows') and discloses the limit default/clamping rule, but it omits return-shape detail, pagination, and any rate/auth expectations, so it is only adequate.
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?
Four short, front-loaded sentences with essentially no waste; the operating constraints appear immediately. Slight redundancy between the title line and 'IMDb user review rows' keeps it from a perfect score.
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?
For a low-complexity, 3-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers the key calling constraint and limit behavior. The main gap is that it does not describe what a review row contains, but with low complexity and fully documented params this is a minor shortfall.
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 the baseline is 3, and the description exceeds it by adding the mutual-exclusivity constraint ('exactly one of `id` or `url`'), which the schema's optional-open fields do not convey. This is genuine added meaning 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('IMDb title user reviews') and clarifies the payload ('public IMDb user review rows'). The resource is unambiguous within the large imdb_* family, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent title sub-resource tools (credits, goofs, ratings), so it stops short of a 5.
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?
'Pass exactly one of `id` or `url`' gives a clear calling rule, but that is parameter-level guidance rather than tool-selection guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusion criteria, leaving usage only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.