Retrieve the full cast and crew for a show using its Trakt ID or slug, including actors, writers, directors, and their roles.
Get all people for a show.
GET /shows/{id}/people
Args: id: The id/slug of the resource. extended: Extended information to include in the response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| extended | 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 establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature. The description adds the endpoint and the note about resource id/slug, but it does not disclose response details, pagination, or any special behavior beyond 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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and free of fluff. The endpoint line is redundant with the tool name but still contributes context; the extended param line is tautological, keeping this from a 5.
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 tool with annotations and an output schema, this is adequate: an agent knows the resource and can invoke it with just id. The main gap is that extended values are undefined and sibling scoping is not addressed, so the description is only minimally complete.
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 carry the parameter documentation burden. It usefully notes that id is an id/slug, but 'Extended information to include in the response' merely restates the parameter name and does not explain accepted values or behavior.
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?
"Get all people for a show" states a specific verb and resource, and the direction is clear: people for a show rather than shows for a person. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the season/episode-level people siblings, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar sibling tools (movie people, season people, episode people, or a person's shows). The use case is only implied by the single sentence, with no conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.