Fetch a Metacritic movie by slug for critic/user scores, sentiment, review counts, genres, cast/crew, rating, runtime, release date, IMDb ID, and trailer.
Get a Metacritic movie. Returns a Metacritic movie: Metascore (critic) and user score with sentiment and review counts, genres, cast/crew, rating, runtime, release date, IMDb id, and trailer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Metacritic movie 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 usefully enumerates the return payload (Metascore, user score/sentiment, genres, cast/crew, rating, runtime, release date, IMDb id, trailer), which is valuable since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about read-only semantics, auth, or rate limits.
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 and free of filler. The opening "Get a Metacritic movie" is mildly redundant with the following "Returns a Metacritic movie:", but the size is appropriate.
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 single-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the returned content. It is not missing anything an agent strictly needs to invoke the tool, though it could note the read-only nature.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'slug' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance (e.g., where to obtain a slug), so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 Metacritic movie") and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows this retrieves a movie entity. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely named siblings like metacritic_movie_critic_reviews or metacritic_movie_user_reviews, leaving the boundary implicit.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The presence of required 'slug' implies an identifier is needed, but the description never says whether to reach for this tool vs. the sibling review tools or metacritic_browse. Usage is only inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.