Find actors, directors, writers, and crew by full or partial name, returning a set number of matches for quick IMDb people lookup.
Find people: actors, directors, writers and crew.
Args: query: Name, or part of one. limit: How many matches to return.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| 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 nothing beyond that — no note on result ordering, empty-match behavior, or truncation — which is a modest but not fatal gap given the annotations.
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 plus a short Args block with zero filler. The purpose line is front-loaded correctly before the parameter notes.
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 needn't be described, and annotations carry the safety semantics. For a 2-parameter search tool the definition covers what's needed to call it, with only ordering/limit-cap details missing.
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 Args block does real work by defining query as a full or partial name and limit as the match count. However it omits the default (10) and any upper bound, leaving the two parameters only partially specified.
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 ('Find people') and enumerates the entity subtypes (actors, directors, writers, crew), which cleanly separates it from search_titles. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it replaces, so it stops 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?
'Find people' plus 'Name, or part of one' implies a fuzzy/prefix lookup as opposed to the exact-record lookup implied by get_name, but the description never says when to prefer which. Usage is inferable from the sibling list rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.