Retrieve film details from Letterboxd by slug: synopsis, director, cast, genres, countries, languages, runtime, and aggregate rating.
Get a Letterboxd film. Returns a Letterboxd film: synopsis, director, cast, genres, countries, languages, runtime, and aggregate member rating.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Letterboxd film slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0v1.6.0v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully enumerates the returned data (synopsis, cast, genres, rating), signaling a read-only detail fetch, but it does not state permission/auth needs, rate limits, or error behavior for an invalid slug.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action verb. The repetition of 'Letterboxd film' in back-to-back sentences is mildly redundant but costs little.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to judge relevance. The main gap is how to source a slug, but for a single-entity detail tool this is largely complete.
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 description coverage is 100% ('Letterboxd film slug'), so the schema already documents the sole parameter. The description adds no format or disambiguation detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
Specific verb+resource ('Get a Letterboxd film') that clearly identifies a single-film detail lookup, distinct from siblings like letterboxd_search, letterboxd_film_reviews, and letterboxd_film_similar. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
No guidance on when to prefer this over letterboxd_search or how a caller should obtain the required slug. The parameter is required but the description offers no workflow context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.