Get watch data for a specific media item by its media ID. Use this to retrieve viewing progress and playback history.
Get watch data.
GET /api/v1/media/{mediaId}/watch_data
Args: media_id: Media ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| media_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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral details—no mention of return format, errors, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply. With the low bar for annotation coverage, it fails to add extra context.
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 concise and free of fluff, but it's under-specified and not well-structured. The URL and args are presented clearly, but the core explanation is minimal.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described, but the description fails to explain what watch data represents, the distinction from similar tools, or any conditions. For a simple GET operation, it's incomplete for an agent to understand its purpose fully.
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?
The description repeats 'media_id: Media ID' which essentially matches the schema's title and type. With 0% schema description coverage, it should compensate but doesn't explain the semantics or format of media_id beyond the schema.
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 'Get watch data' which is a verb+resource, but it's vague—'watch data' is undefined and doesn't distinguish from the sibling get_user_by_user_id_watch_data. The URL pattern adds little clarity. It's not a tautology, but it lacks specificity.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user_by_user_id_watch_data. The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.