Retrieve TV season metadata, scorecard, parent series, and episode rows from a Rotten Tomatoes season path or absolute URL.
Rotten Tomatoes season detail. Returns Rotten Tomatoes TV season metadata, scorecard data, parent series metadata, and episode rows. Pass exactly one of path or url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Absolute https://www.rottentomatoes.com season URL | |
| path | No | Rotten Tomatoes season path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (metadata, scorecard, parent series, episodes), which is the key behavioral trait, but omits any note on auth, rate limits, or what happens if both/neither param is passed.
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 and return payload, then the invocation constraint. No wasted words.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return contents, and it covers both params. It stops short of linking to sibling tools for discovery, a minor gap for a detail tool.
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 both params are documented, and the description adds the critical mutual-exclusivity rule ('exactly one of path or url') that the schema does not encode via oneOf — genuinely valuable beyond structured data.
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+resource (Rotten Tomatoes season detail) and enumerates exactly what data is returned: season metadata, scorecard, parent series, and episode rows. An agent knows precisely what this tool produces.
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 'pass exactly one of path or url' instruction guides invocation but not tool selection. It never mentions when to use this versus rottentomatoes_series or rottentomatoes_episode, nor any prerequisite for obtaining a season path/url, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.