Search and filter 68 current and classic film stocks by text, ISO, type, grain, latitude, format, use case, or price tier.
Search the Openfilm film stock database (68 current and classic stocks) by text, ISO, type, grain, latitude, format, use case or price tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iso | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| grain | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| format | No | ||
| best_for | No | ||
| max_price_tier | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that results are read-only, whether filters combine with AND logic, what the default for the undocumented 'limit' is, or how results are returned or ordered.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence naming the verb, the resource, the corpus size, and the filtered dimensions with zero filler. Well sized for a search tool.
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 8 undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is not sufficient. The agent is left without filter-combination semantics, default limit behavior, or any indication of what a result contains.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps recognizable colloquial labels to parameters ('use case' for best_for, 'price tier' for max_price_tier) which adds some value beyond bare param names, but gives no accepted values (grain, type), no ISO range, and no price-tier definition. It also references 'latitude', which is not a parameter in the schema at all, which is a defect.
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 (search) and resource (Openfilm film stock database), plus scope (68 current and classic stocks) and the facet dimensions available. It implicitly separates itself from get_film_stock (single lookup) but never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No statement of when to use this tool versus get_film_stock, recommend_film, or compare_films, and no preconditions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'search', leaving the agent to infer that this is the exploration entry point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.