get_collectionRetrieve shots from a curated archival film collection, including timing, source film and download links by passing a collection slug or /collection/ page URL.
Get the shots in one curated collection, with timing, source film and download links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Collection slug from list_collections (e.g. 'cats') or a /collection/ page URL | |
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the response contains (timing, source film, download links), which helps an agent decide whether this tool suffices before calling download. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior or the volume of shots returned, which matters given the limit/offset parameters.
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?
One tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource and then enumerates the useful return data. No filler.
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-only tool with no output schema, the description does a fair job describing return content, but it leaves the pagination contract (limit default 24, max 50, offset) entirely undocumented, which is a real gap for a collection that may contain many shots.
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 only 33%: 'slug' is well-documented in the schema, but 'limit' and 'offset' have no descriptions anywhere. The description does not compensate by explaining pagination defaults, maximums (limit max 50), or how to page through a large collection.
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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('shots in one curated collection') and previews the returned fields (timing, source film, download links). It implicitly differentiates from list_collections by emphasizing a single collection, but never names the sibling or the routing rule.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should call this after obtaining a slug. The 'slug' schema entry points back to list_collections, but the description itself offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives like get_source or search_clips.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.