Search for movies, TV shows, or people by query, with optional page and language parameters.
Search for movies, TV shows, or people.
GET /api/v1/search
Args: query: Query parameter. page: Query parameter. language: Query parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| language | No |
| 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 the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description only adds the GET endpoint and the resource scope, with no extra behavioral context like pagination behavior, result limits, or authentication needs. No contradiction with 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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, and the endpoint is useful. However, the Args section is largely tautological and adds little value, though it does not make the description bloated.
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?
Even with an output schema and safety annotations, the description lacks essential usage context: it does not explain query semantics, page behavior, language code format, or when to choose this over sibling search/discovery tools. This is too incomplete for reliable invocation.
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%, and the description's argument list merely repeats the parameter names with generic 'Query parameter' labels. It adds no meaningful semantics about formats, defaults, optionality, or how the parameters interact.
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?
States a clear verb ('Search') and specific resource categories (movies, TV shows, people), and includes the endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like list_search_company or list_search_keyword, so it falls short of full distinction.
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 alternatives such as list_search_company, list_search_keyword, or the various list_discover_* tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.