Retrieves all combined movie and TV credits for a person by their ID, with optional language for localized metadata.
Get combined credits.
GET /api/v1/person/{personId}/combined_credits
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the HTTP method GET and parameter placement, but no further behavioral context such as response behavior or language handling.
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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and free of filler. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema but usefully clarifies path versus query placement.
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?
Annotations and output schema cover safety and return shape, and the simple parameter set is mostly invokable from the endpoint alone. However, the description omits the meaning of 'combined credits' and any usage differentiation from sibling tools, leaving minor but real gaps.
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 needed to compensate. It only labels person_id as a path parameter and language as a query parameter; it does not explain valid values, expected language code format, or what the parameters mean semantically.
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 the action ('Get combined credits') and includes the precise endpoint, making it clear that this tool retrieves a person's combined credits resource. It is distinguishable from sibling get_person_by_person_id by the '/combined_credits' path, though it does not explicitly define what 'combined credits' includes.
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_person_by_person_id or list_search. The description only lists the endpoint and parameter locations, with no when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.