Fetch a Letterboxd film's star-rating distribution by slug, showing counts and percentages across 0.5 to 5.0 half-star buckets.
Get a Letterboxd film's rating distribution. Returns a film's full star-rating distribution (0.5 to 5.0 in half-star buckets) with counts and percentages. Credential-free public Letterboxd data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Letterboxd film slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool is credential-free and public, and specifies the output includes counts and percentages for each half-star bucket. Without annotations, it covers key behavioral aspects for a read operation, though it omits details like error handling or data freshness.
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 three short sentences, each providing essential information: purpose, output format, and access context. No redundant or unnecessary content.
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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the output structure well (star-range buckets, counts, percentages). It could be more complete by mentioning how to obtain the slug or potential error responses, but overall it sufficiently covers the tool's functionality.
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 single parameter 'slug' is described in the schema as 'Letterboxd film slug', and the description's phrase 'Get a Letterboxd film's rating distribution' implies the slug identifies the film. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional semantic value.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'rating distribution', detailing the star-rating buckets and output structure (counts and percentages). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that provide film details, reviews, or similar films.
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 states the tool retrieves rating distribution, implying usage when that specific data is needed. It mentions 'Credential-free public Letterboxd data', indicating no auth is required. However, it does not explicitly advise when not to use it or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.