Retrieve a Letterboxd member's public profile statistics, including films watched, lists, following, and followers, using only their username.
Get a Letterboxd member's public profile stats. Returns a member's public profile stats (films watched, lists, following/followers). No private data — everything is visible to a logged-out visitor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Letterboxd username |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits — the data is public, no private data is returned, and it is accessible to a logged-out visitor (i.e., no auth needed). It does not address rate limits, pagination, or error behavior for invalid usernames, so it is only partially complete.
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 core action. The second sentence restates 'public profile stats' from the first before adding the stat list and the privacy note, which is minor redundancy but not harmful.
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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent both what goes in and roughly what comes back (films watched, lists, followers). An agent can call it correctly; only edge-case behavior (invalid user, empty profile) is unaddressed.
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?
There is a single 'username' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the input. The description adds no format guidance (handle vs. display name, case sensitivity) beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline for a fully-covered single-param 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 — 'Get a Letterboxd member's public profile stats' — and enumerates the stat categories (films watched, lists, following/followers). It implicitly separates this from letterboxd_film and letterboxd_person via the 'member' framing, but never explicitly distinguishes itself from letterboxd_person, which could plausibly be confused at selection time.
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?
Usage is only implied: the reader infers this is the tool for 'look up a Letterboxd user'. There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance, no pointer to siblings such as letterboxd_person or letterboxd_search, and no mention of what happens for a non-existent or private username.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.