Fetch movie details using an IMDB ID. Returns cast, plot, ratings, and other information for the specified movie.
Get detailed information about a movie by its IMDB ID
Args:
imdb_id: IMDB ID of the movie (e.g., 'tt0111161')
Returns:
String representation of the movie details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| imdb_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape at a high level ('String representation of the movie details'), which is more than nothing, but it omits any detail on what fields appear, error behavior for a bad ID, or rate/auth considerations.
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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient, and the Args block adds a useful format example. The 'Returns' line is vague docstring boilerplate that adds little, keeping this out of the top tier.
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 one-parameter read lookup with no output schema and no annotations this is minimally adequate: it covers the input and gestures at the return type. It doesn't describe what detail fields are returned or how failures are surfaced, which the absence of an output schema leaves open.
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% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does so by naming the parameter, stating its meaning ('IMDB ID of the movie'), and giving a concrete format example ('tt0111161'), which is genuinely useful for correct invocation.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a movie') plus the lookup key ('by its IMDB ID'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling 'search_movie', which an agent must infer is the ID-less alternative.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling 'search_movie'. The phrase 'by its IMDB ID' only weakly implies the precondition that an ID must already be known, so usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.