Fetch a Metacritic TV show by slug to get Metascore, user score, sentiment, review counts, genres, networks, season count, rating, release date, IMDb ID, and trailer.
Get a Metacritic TV show. Returns a Metacritic TV show: Metascore (critic) and user score with sentiment and review counts, genres, networks, season count, rating, release date, IMDb id, and trailer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Metacritic TV show 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, but it does deliver useful output context: it enumerates the returned fields (metascore, user score with sentiment and review counts, genres, networks, season count, rating, release date, IMDb id, trailer). It says nothing about auth, rate limits, or error behavior, which is a gap given zero annotation coverage.
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?
The two sentences are front-loaded but redundant: 'Get a Metacritic TV show' is immediately restated as 'Returns a Metacritic TV show'. The long field enumeration is informative, but the wasted repetition keeps this out of the top band.
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 tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields is exactly the right compensation and makes the definition largely self-sufficient. The absence of any usage routing to the review siblings is the main remaining gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so the single 'slug' parameter is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format or derivation guidance for the slug, so baseline 3 applies – the schema does the work and the description neither helps nor harms.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a Metacritic TV show') that clearly distinguishes it from the metacritic_game and metacritic_movie siblings. It stops short of naming the review-detail siblings (metacritic_tv_critic_reviews, metacritic_tv_user_reviews) that an agent might confuse it with.
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 agent is not told that this returns aggregate scores while metacritic_tv_critic_reviews / metacritic_tv_user_reviews return the underlying reviews, nor that a slug (not a title) is required as input.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.