Retrieve available streams for a movie or TV episode from a specific Stremio addon by providing the addon URL and IMDb ID, with optional season and episode.
Ask one specific addon for the streams it has for a movie or episode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| season | No | ||
| episode | No | ||
| imdb_id | Yes | ||
| addon_url | Yes | ||
| content_type | No | movie |
| 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?
No annotations, so the description carries the burden, and it does convey that this queries exactly one addon rather than aggregating. However, it discloses nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure modes when the addon lacks the content. An output schema exists, so return-format disclosure is not required.
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 with no filler; the key scoping constraint ('one specific addon') is stated immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a 5-parameter 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?
The output schema covers return values, but with five parameters at 0% schema coverage the description leaves key calling details unexplained (content_type values, season/episode semantics, imdb_id format). Adequate to recognize the tool, thin for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate and only partially does: 'one specific addon' hints at addon_url and 'a movie or episode' maps to content_type/season/episode. It never explains the addon_url format, valid content_type values, or that season/episode default 0 means a movie.
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 (ask/get), resource (streams), and scope ('one specific addon' for 'a movie or episode'). This distinguishes it from the aggregation sibling stremio_find_streams, which searches across sources. Clear purpose without needing the schema.
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 phrase 'one specific addon' implies this is used when you already know the addon, versus stremio_find_streams for broad search, but the alternative is never named and no when-not guidance is given. Usage is inferable but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.