Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

letterboxd_person

Retrieve a Letterboxd person's filmography by slug, ranked by popularity for actor or director credits, with film titles and URLs.

Instructions

Get a Letterboxd person's filmography. Returns a person's Letterboxd filmography by slug, ranked by popularity for one credit role. role is actor (default) or director, and limit defaults to 10 with a max of 50. The response has the person's name, role, and films with slug, title and Letterboxd URL.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNoCredit role, default actor
slugYesLetterboxd person slug
limitNoMax films, default 10, max 50

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.17.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / role / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "actor",
+  "director"
+]
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: results are ranked by popularity, limited to one credit role, and the output shape (name, role, films with slug/title/URL). It omits error behavior and rate limits, but for a read-only retrieval tool this is solid disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three front-loaded sentences that each convey scope, parameters, and return shape. Minor redundancy between 'Get a person's filmography' and 'Returns a person's filmography', but no wasted content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it explains filtering (role), sizing (limit), ranking, and the returned fields so an agent knows what to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents role default (actor), limit default (10) and max (50). The description largely restates these, adding the enum values but no new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get a Letterboxd person's filmography') and the scope (ranked by popularity for one credit role). It is clearly distinct from film-focused siblings like letterboxd_film and letterboxd_search, though it does not name an alternative to route between.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the resource (retrieve a person's filmography), and the description clarifies the role/limit semantics, but it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or named alternatives among the many letterboxd_* tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools