Retrieves full movie scenes from the start through a specified scene number using the movie title, enabling an LLM to explain the plot up to that point.
This tool uses the movie title and scene number to get all full scenes from the beginning to scene n, so the LLM can explain the movie up until scene n.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | Yes | ||
| movie_title | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but it says nothing about permissions, whether the result is truncated for long movies, how the title is matched, or whether n is 1-indexed/inclusive.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the operation, with no filler. The trailing 'so the LLM can explain the movie up until scene n' partially restates the range clause, but it adds rationale rather than pure repetition.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Still, for a tool whose correctness depends on range boundaries and title matching, the description leaves those semantics unstated and does not address the movie_matcher sibling.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does map both params to meaning ('movie title and scene number'). It stops short of clarifying title-matching behavior (exact vs fuzzy) or whether scene n is included in the returned range.
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 and resource ('get all full scenes') and bounds the scope to 'from the beginning to scene n'. The intent is clear enough to distinguish it from a title-matching tool, though it never names the sibling movie_matcher to sharpen the contrast.
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?
Gives an implied use case ('so the LLM can explain the movie up until scene n'), which is a genuine context cue. However, it offers no when-not guidance and never mentions movie_matcher as the alternative for finding or disambiguating a title.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.