Fetch a game's Metacritic scores, sentiment, review counts, genres, platform breakdowns, developer, publisher, rating, release date, and trailer by slug.
Get a Metacritic game. Returns a Metacritic game: Metascore (critic) and user score with sentiment and review counts, genres, per-platform scores, developer/publisher, rating, release date, and trailer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Metacritic game slug |
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 partially meets this by enumerating the returned fields (scores, genres, per-platform scores, developer/publisher, trailer), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. However it says nothing about the read-only nature, the required slug format, or how to obtain a valid slug, which is the main practical friction.
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, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the return contents. The field list is long but earns its place given the absence of an output schema. Slightly redundant in opening with 'Get a Metacritic game' immediately followed by 'Returns a Metacritic game'.
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 single-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return payload but omits the two things an agent most needs: how to obtain a valid slug and how this differs from the sibling review/browse tools. Adequate, but with clear gaps.
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 one parameter (slug) and schema coverage is 100%, but the schema text 'Metacritic game slug' is essentially a restatement. The description adds no format guidance (e.g., hyphenated canonical slug) or note about how the slug differs from a game title, so it does not improve on the 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 ('Get') and resource ('a Metacritic game'), and the second sentence enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows what entity this operates on. It does not name or differentiate itself from near siblings such as metacritic_game_critic_reviews or metacritic_game_user_reviews, so the distinction must be inferred.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The sibling set contains closely related tools (metacritic_browse, metacritic_game_critic_reviews, metacritic_game_user_reviews) that an agent could easily confuse with this one, and the description does nothing to route between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.