Search Letterboxd films, people, lists, and tags with public credential-free data. Filter by result type and limit to find movies, users, or curated collections.
Search Letterboxd. Searches Letterboxd films, people, lists, and tags. Credential-free public Letterboxd data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query | |
| type | No | Optional result type filter | |
| limit | No | Max results, default 10, max 50 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Input schema / properties / type / enumAdded value: +[
+ "film"
+]v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'credential-free' (useful), but does not describe output format, pagination, result ordering, or any side effects. For a search tool, the absence of return type details is a notable gap, though the statement that it's public read-only data is a small positive.
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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second adds the credential attribute. Information density is high and the purpose is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Without an output schema, the description doesn't explain what results look like or how to interpret them. It also fails to note that the type parameter's enum only includes 'film' (a useful constraint), and doesn't mention result limits beyond what schema provides. For a broad multi-entity search, the description is adequate but leaves room for more detail on output and constraints.
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 descriptions cover all three parameters (q, type, limit) with clear definitions, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter context (e.g., how q interacts with the type filter), but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents each parameter adequately.
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 clearly states the tool searches Letterboxd and enumerates the entity types (films, people, lists, tags), giving a specific resource and scope. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the verb 'search' plus listed entities is distinct enough to separate it from specific tools like letterboxd_film or letterboxd_person.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is 'Credential-free public Letterboxd data,' which clarifies authentication but doesn't help an agent decide between this and siblings like letterboxd_film or letterboxd_popular. No exclusions or alternate selection criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.