Retrieve Rotten Tomatoes movie metadata, scorecard data, and representative audience reviews by passing a single movie path or URL.
Rotten Tomatoes movie detail. Returns Rotten Tomatoes movie metadata, scorecard data, and representative audience reviews. Pass exactly one of path or url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Absolute https://www.rottentomatoes.com movie URL | |
| path | No | Rotten Tomatoes movie path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the returned content (metadata, scorecard, representative audience reviews), which is real behavioral context. However, it omits any note about read-only nature, auth requirements, or rate limits; for a read detail tool this is acceptable but thin.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource identity and the return payload, ending with the key calling constraint. No filler; slightly terse rather than over-long.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing outputs and does so in outline (metadata, scorecard, audience reviews). It falls short on how to obtain the required path/url and on differentiation from sibling review tools, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.
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 baseline is 3, and the description adds the mutual-exclusivity constraint ('exactly one of path or url') that the schema itself does not express since both params are optional. It does not explain the relationship to search or the format expectations of each, but the added constraint is genuine value.
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 implicit in 'detail' plus the resource (Rotten Tomatoes movie) and enumerates the payload: metadata, scorecard, and representative audience reviews. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling rottentomatoes_movie_reviews (which presumably returns the full review set vs. the 'representative' samples here).
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?
The only guidance is the parameter constraint 'pass exactly one of path or url'. There is no statement of when to use this versus rottentomatoes_movie_reviews, rottentomatoes_search, or the browse tools, and no hint that a search step is needed to obtain a path/url.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.