Retrieve the full team of cast and crew for a Trakt show or movie. Get role details and extended information to understand who contributed to any title.
Get team members.
GET /team/
Args: extended: Extended information to include in the response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description is consistent with these annotations and adds nothing contradictory, but it also adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination, rate limits, or what the response includes. Minimal value beyond annotations; a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded, the HTTP endpoint is included, and the parameter note is compact. No wasted words; efficient structure. Slightly more room for behavioral detail, but nothing here is fluff.
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 tool with an existing output schema and annotations covering safety, the definition is mostly complete. The main gap is the vague 'extended' semantics; otherwise an agent can call it correctly. A solid 3.
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 compensate. It explains 'extended' as 'Extended information to include in the response,' which adds meaning beyond the bare schema field, but stays vague—it does not enumerate what kind of extended info is available. Adequate but thin compensation for a single undocumented parameter.
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 specific verb and resource ('Get team members') and provides the HTTP endpoint (GET /team/). No sibling tool targets 'team' members, so it is naturally distinguished from the extensive list of user/list/media siblings merely by its stated subject.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about whose team is returned, and no note about authentication/prerequisites. With ~200 siblings, there is no exclusions or routing signal to help an agent decide correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.