get_anime_detailsVerify an AniList anime ID and retrieve episodes, genres, description, existing library entry, and community recommendations; check membership before suggesting titles.
Verify an AniList anime ID; read episodes, genres, description, existing entry and community recommendations. Recommendations are candidates: check library membership before suggesting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| media_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: that the response bundles in the user's existing list entry and community recommendations, and a caution about treating recommendations as candidates rather than facts.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the return contents, followed by the recommendation caveat. The field list is slightly dense but nothing is padding.
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?
With no output schema, the description does the work of naming what comes back (episodes, genres, description, entry, recommendations). The main omission is error behavior for an invalid or unknown media_id, which matters for a verify-style lookup.
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?
Only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It does identify media_id as an AniList anime ID, which is the key semantic, but adds no format, range, or validity detail (e.g., positive integer, what happens on an unknown ID).
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 (verify/read) and resource (an AnimeList anime), and enumerates the fields returned: episodes, genres, description, existing entry, recommendations. It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_anime by framing the input as an existing AniList ID to verify, but never names the sibling 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 phrase 'Verify an AniList anime ID' implies you must already have an ID (i.e., use search_anime first), but this is left to inference. The one explicit guideline, that recommendations are candidates and library membership should be checked first, is genuinely useful but only covers post-call handling, not when to choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.