Retrieve your IMDb rating history to review every movie or show you've rated. Fetch up to 10 pages of ratings for a complete list.
Read the authenticated user's current IMDb ratings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_pages | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the 'authenticated user's current' scope but provides no additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or side effects. This is a mild addition beyond the annotations, not a contradiction.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the operation and resource without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the read-only annotations, the presence of an output schema, and only one optional parameter, the short description is largely sufficient for correct selection and invocation. The main minor gaps are the unelaborated max_pages parameter and lack of explicit sibling routing. Overall it is nearly complete for its complexity.
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?
The input schema has one optional parameter, max_pages, but schema description coverage is 0% and the tool description does not explain pagination semantics or what 'pages' means in this context. The parameter name and default of 10 provide some self-evident meaning, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation. This leaves a noticeable gap for an agent deciding how to set the parameter.
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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the exact resource: the authenticated user's current IMDb ratings. It clearly distinguishes from sibling mutation tools like set_my_rating and delete_my_rating, and the plural 'ratings' separates it from the singular get_my_rating. The purpose is immediately recognizable.
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 description implies that this tool is for retrieving the authenticated user's ratings, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over get_my_rating or how it relates to search_titles or list_my_watchlist. No when/when-not guidance or alternatives are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling names. This is implied usage rather than explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.