Retrieve IMDb title technical specifications such as runtime, sound mix, color, and aspect ratio by providing an IMDb title ID or URL.
IMDb title technical specs. Returns public IMDb technical specifications such as runtime, sound mix, color, and aspect ratio. 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. Calling the data 'public IMDb technical specifications' implies a read-only, no-auth operation, which is helpful, but it says nothing about error behavior when a title has no specs, rate limits, or the shape of the response. Adequate but thin for an unannotated tool.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource, then the payload, then the input constraint. 'IMDb title technical specs' mildly restates the tool name, but the rest 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?
For a simple two-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers what is returned and the key input rule. Nothing critical is missing, though it could note behavior on titles lacking technical data.
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, but the description adds a real constraint the schema lacks: the two parameters are mutually exclusive ('Pass exactly one of id or url'), even though the schema marks both as optional with no oneOf. This is meaningful semantics beyond the structured fields.
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 ('Returns public IMDb technical specifications') and enumerates the data returned (runtime, sound mix, color, aspect ratio), which clearly separates it from content siblings like imdb_title_credits or imdb_title_awards. It does not, however, name any sibling tool or explicitly say how it differs from the other imdb_title_* tools.
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 guidance 'Pass exactly one of id or url' tells the agent how to supply input but gives no when-to-use context or routing to alternatives. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than explicitly stated against a competing tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.