Retrieve any public IMDb list by its ls ID or URL, including titles or people, with pagination controls for limit and cursor.
Any public IMDb list by its ls id, titles or people.
Args: id: List id such as ls055592025, or a URL containing one. limit: How many per page. cursor: next_cursor from the previous page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that only public lists are reachable and that results are paginated via cursor, but says nothing about error behavior for private/invalid ids or how pagination terminates.
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?
Three lines total, front-loaded with the resource and followed by a clean Args block; nothing is padded. The opening sentence is slightly ungrammatical but the information density is high.
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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and all three parameters are explained, which covers what an agent needs to make a valid call. It falls short of complete only on failure modes (private list, bad id) and how to detect the end of pagination.
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 carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it gives a concrete id format (ls055592025) plus the alternative of a URL, explains limit as page size, and explains cursor as the next_cursor from the prior page. Only limit's interaction with defaults/paging limits is left implicit.
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 states a specific verb+resource ('get ... IMDb list') and constrains it to public lists by ls id, which is enough to tell it apart from get_title, search_titles, and get_chart. The trailing 'titles or people' is ambiguous (it is unclear whether it describes the id format or list contents), which keeps it short of a 5.
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 statement of when to use this versus the many siblings (get_chart, search_titles, advanced_title_search, get_result_page), and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only guidance is the implied constraint that the list must be public.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.