Retrieve comprehensive details for any person, such as an actor or director, by providing their unique person ID. Specify an optional language for localized results.
Get person details.
GET /api/v1/person/{personId}
Args: person_id: Path parameter. language: Query parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | ||
| person_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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds the GET endpoint and parameter roles but discloses little else; it does not contradict 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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the endpoint and parameter roles. Every line earns its place, with no unnecessary prose.
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 ID-based read operation, the description together with annotations and the available output schema provides enough to invoke it safely. The main gaps are the lack of language-parameter semantics and any guidance on choosing between person-related endpoints.
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 labels person_id as a path parameter and language as a query parameter, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema properties. However, it does not explain what language controls or what values are acceptable, leaving the parameter semantics only partially clarified even though schema description coverage is 0%.
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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Get person details.' It also gives the concrete GET endpoint, so an agent knows what resource is being fetched. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_person_by_person_id_combined_credits, though the resource scope is inferable.
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 about when to use this tool versus related person tools such as get_person_by_person_id_combined_credits. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context clues about when this lookup is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.