Retrieve combined Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB ratings for a movie using its movie ID. Get both critic and audience scores in one call.
Get RT and IMDB movie ratings combined.
GET /api/v1/movie/{movieId}/ratingscombined
Args: movie_id: Path parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| movie_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, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the core function—it does not mention auth, rate limits, or response details. The description does not contradict 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?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the main action. The 'Args' line is slightly redundant given the schema, but the overall structure is clean and free of fluff.
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 read-only endpoint with a single parameter and an output schema (signal indicates presence), the description adequately states the purpose and output scope. Missing usage guidelines and parameter nuances are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 only restates 'movie_id: Path parameter,' which adds no meaning beyond the parameter name and type already present in the schema. No explanation of what the movie_id represents or constraints beyond it being required.
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 'Get' and the resource 'RT and IMDB movie ratings combined.' It explicitly mentions the two rating sources, which distinguishes it from sibling get_movie_by_movie_id_ratings. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.
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 such as get_movie_by_movie_id_ratings or other movie endpoints. The description only states what it does without indicating usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.