Fetch Rotten Tomatoes TV series metadata and scorecard data by passing a series path or URL. Provides clean JSON for show details and ratings.
Rotten Tomatoes series detail. Returns Rotten Tomatoes TV series metadata and scorecard data. Pass exactly one of path or url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Absolute https://www.rottentomatoes.com series URL | |
| path | No | Rotten Tomatoes series path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns metadata and scorecard data (helpful given there is no output schema) and that path/url are mutually exclusive, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior on an invalid path/url.
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, zero filler, and the identity of the resource is front-loaded before the return contents and the parameter constraint.
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 two-param detail endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool is, what it returns roughly, and how to supply the identifier. It stops short of explaining behavior on bad input or whether one form of the identifier is preferred.
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 baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema by stating the 'exactly one of path or url' constraint, which the schema itself does not encode (both properties are optional with no oneOf). It adds real disambiguation value but no format details beyond what the property descriptions already give.
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 series detail') and names the payload ('TV series metadata and scorecard data'), so the agent knows this is a TV-series lookup rather than a movie/season/episode one. It never explicitly contrasts itself with close siblings like rottentomatoes_movie or rottentomatoes_season, so differentiation is left to inference.
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, no prerequisite, and no mention of alternatives such as rottentomatoes_search or rottentomatoes_browse_tv. The only instruction, 'Pass exactly one of `path` or `url`', is about parameter form, not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.