Retrieve the item attached to a Trakt note by providing its note ID or slug. Use this to fetch the movie, show, or other resource linked to a specific note.
Get the attached item.
GET /notes/{id}/item
Args: id: The id/slug of the resource.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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=false, so the operation's safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral detail, such as authentication needs, response shape, or edge cases, but 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 very concise: a one-line purpose statement, the endpoint, and the argument explanation. There is no filler, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 one-parameter, read-only endpoint with an output schema, the description covers the basic request shape. However, the vague meaning of 'attached item' and the lack of any contextual or sibling differentiation make it less complete than it could be for an agent selecting among many similar tools.
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 partially compensates by explaining that 'id' is 'The id/slug of the resource.' However, 'resource' is ambiguous and does not explicitly identify it as the note ID or slug, leaving some room for misinterpretation.
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 a clear verb and resource: 'Get the attached item,' and the endpoint 'GET /notes/{id}/item' clarifies that this retrieves the item attached to a note. It is not a tautology, but the phrase 'attached item' is somewhat vague without explicitly saying it is the note's attached item.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not distinguish it from similar sibling tools such as get_comments_by_id_item. Usage is only implied by the endpoint path and tool name, with no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.