ThePornDB MCP Service

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'paginated scene results' and can raise errors on validation failure, which adds some context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'adult video scenes' specifically entails (e.g., source, format), leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The use of sections like 'Args:', 'Returns:', and 'Raises:' adds structure, though the inclusion of 'ctx: MCP context (injected automatically)' is redundant as it's not a user-provided parameter. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 complexity of a search tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers parameter semantics and basic behavior but lacks details on output format (beyond 'paginated scene results'), error specifics, or how it differs from sibling tools. This leaves some gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's context.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'search_term' covers 'scene title, performer name, site name' and 'year' is an 'optional filter by release year (1900-current year)'. This clarifies the semantics and constraints of both parameters, compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for adult video scenes by term and optional year.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('adult video scenes'), and scope ('by term and optional year'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_jav' or 'search_movies', which might target different content types or databases.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_jav' or 'search_movies'. It mentions the parameters but doesn't explain the context or prerequisites for using this search, such as what content it covers compared to siblings. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.