Assign a personal rating from 1 to 10, including half points, to a specific film by its ID to update your review in the Rollekino archive.
Set Rolle's own rating for a film, out of 10.
Args: id: Film id. rating: 1 to 10. Half points are allowed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| rating | 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 cover readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds rating range details but no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations, which meets the lower bar set by the annotation coverage.
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 extremely concise: a single purpose line followed by a compact argument list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague wording.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, two required parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It might have mentioned overwrite behavior, but idempotentHint already implies repeated setting is safe.
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. It does so by explaining 'id: Film id' and 'rating: 1 to 10. Half points are allowed', adding semantic meaning beyond the bare schema types. This is sufficient for the two simple parameters.
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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'Rolle's own rating for a film', with the value constrained to 'out of 10'. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like write_review.
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 context implies this tool is for setting a personal rating, especially given the phrase 'Rolle's own rating', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives like write_review. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.