Retrieve an alternative title's details by supplying its ID. Use this to look up specific title information directly.
Read AlternativeTitle.
GET /api/v3/alttitle/{id}
Args: id: Path parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | 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?
The description adds nothing beyond the annotations. It only says 'Read' and gives the endpoint, which is already implied by readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. It does not disclose any additional behavior such as error responses, field details, or what the response contains.
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 description is very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. It does not waste words, but it lacks important context, so it is concise at the expense of completeness.
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 simple single-parameter GET, the description is minimally complete because the name and endpoint are self-explanatory. However, it does not provide any domain context (what an AlternativeTitle is) or usage notes, and given that an output schema exists, it could still benefit from a sentence clarifying the resource's purpose.
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, but it only states 'id: Path parameter', which is trivial and does not explain what the ID represents, any constraints, or the context. The schema already provides the type and required flag, so the description adds no meaningful semantics.
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 clearly states the resource ('AlternativeTitle') and the action ('Read'), and the HTTP GET path reinforces the read operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from list_alttitle, so an agent might not immediately know when to use this versus the list variant.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_alttitle. The description does not mention that this is for fetching a single record by ID while list_alttitle enumerates all records, leaving the selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.