get_ratingsRetrieve a single rating source for multiple movies or shows in one call by passing provider IDs, media type, and rating source. Batch up to 10 IDs per request, or 100 for supporters.
Get one rating source for many movies or shows at once. Max 10 IDs per call (100 for supporters).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Provider IDs | |
| provider | No | Provider of the given IDs | tmdb |
| media_type | Yes | ||
| rating_source | Yes |
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 and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds a genuine quota detail (10 IDs per call, 100 for supporters) that the structured fields do not convey. It leaves open what happens on exceeding the limit and how 'supporter' status is determined, and the stated cap of 10 is looser than the schema's maxItems of 100, which is slightly confusing.
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?
Two tight sentences with the capability first and the hard limit second. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.
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 simple read-only batch lookup with no output schema, the description plus schema covers what an agent needs. Missing details (failure behavior for unknown IDs, enum semantics) are gaps but not blockers 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 only 50%: ids and provider are documented inline while media_type and rating_source have bare enums with 11 values, several of them non-obvious (score vs score_average, mal, tomatoes). The description clarifies that only one rating_source is returned per call, but adds nothing about provider selection or the enum meanings. Baseline 3 for a description that partially compensates.
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 (get), resource (ratings) and the batch scope, plus a meaningful constraint ('one rating source for many movies or shows'). That distinguishes it from sibling rate_media and remove_ratings, though it never names them explicitly.
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 batching note and per-call limits imply when this tool is appropriate (bulk lookups rather than single-item calls), but there is no explicit 'use X instead when Y'. An agent must infer the routing against get_media_info and rate_media from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.