tvmaze-mcp-server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the source records no recurring-versus-guest distinction and the implication for interpreting absence, which is a non-obvious limitation an agent needs to know.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loading the core operation in the first sentence and then adding the crucial open-world caveat in the second. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the rich schema descriptions, output schema, and annotations, the description still fills the remaining semantic gap by explaining the show-versus-episode distinction and why checking the episode guest cast for possible appearances. Nothing the agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including include_crew and its default and the sources for show_id and episode_id. The description adds only the 'optionally with crew' notion, lightly reinforcing the schema but not going beyond the schema's already-rich parameter text.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the credited cast of a show with the characters they play' and explicitly distinguishes the show-level and episode-scope modes. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like tvmaze_get_episodes and tvmaze_get_show, whose purposes are different resources.

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 is clear about when to use episode guest cast versus show cast, including the caveat that absence from the show cast list does not prove non-appearance and pointing the agent to 'check an episode’s guest cast for that.' It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the tool itself already covers the cast-retrieval niche.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: specials are excluded by default, the whole-run path is paged, and a season-scoped call is cheaper. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict response cost and filtering behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the main purpose, the season-vs-full-run decision with cost/paging context, and the specials default. The most important usage guidance 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?

Given the rich output schema and well-covered parameters, the description covers the key behavioral decisions an agent needs: season scoping, paging, and specials handling. No critical operational detail is missing.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds extra value by highlighting the season parameter as the cheaper/usual path, explaining that omitting it triggers a paged walk, and noting the specials-exclusion default tied to include_specials. These nuances are not fully captured in the parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb (List) and resource (a show's episodes) and names the returned content (air times, runtimes, synopses). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like tvmaze_get_next_episode, tvmaze_get_schedule, and tvmaze_get_cast by focusing on episode listing with season/paging behavior.

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 clear direction on the common path (pass a season number) and the alternative (omit it to walk the whole run), including the cost tradeoff and paging implication. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the guidance is sufficiently actionable for an agent to decide how to call the tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the stricter title matching and the miss-with-most-recent-episode behavior. It does not cover potential errors (e.g., show not found) but that is minor given the annotations and the tool's read-only nature.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes only essential details. No fluff or redundancy—every sentence earns its place.

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 lookup tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, how to specify the show (id or title), timezone conversion, and the miss behavior. It doesn't mention error cases, but that is not critical given the output schema exists and the tool is read-only. The description is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by clarifying that title resolution uses a stricter single-match search than tvmaze_search_shows, which is not fully captured in the schema. It also ties the timezone parameter to the viewer timezone conversion. This goes beyond schema details, hence a 4.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair ('Report when a show's next episode airs') and explicitly notes it accepts either an id or title, distinguishing it from siblings like tvmaze_get_episodes (which lists episodes) and tvmaze_search_shows (which is a broader search). The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates itself.

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 clear context: it mentions the stricter single-match search relative to tvmaze_search_shows, implying when to use this tool for title resolution, and explains the miss behavior for off-season shows. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need the next air date' or contrast with all alternative tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: schedule data is cached for up to an hour and may lag late changes, and the "all" scope costs three upstream requests. This helps an agent anticipate staleness and cost without contradicting 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence earns its place. The scope definitions are compact, and the caching caveat is a single clear warning. No filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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?

The description is complete for this tool: it addresses the main decision axes (scope, country, timezone), discloses the cache and request-cost behavior, and relies on the output schema and detailed parameter schema for paging and return values. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema already covers all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by integrating parameter meanings into scenarios: how scope and country interact for streaming services, what "all" costs, and how timezone affects the default date. This is useful beyond the isolated schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "List television episodes airing on a given date." It then clarifies the three scope variants, which clearly differentiates this from show/cast/episode lookup siblings. An agent can immediately know what this tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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 clear context for choosing between linear, streaming, and all scopes, and explains how country affects global vs local streaming. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the schedule-specific purpose and scope guidance are sufficient for correct selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it discloses that previous/next episode are included only 'when the source has them', and that the timezone parameter affects rendering of those air times. It doesn't describe pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only fetch with an output schema, the added context is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the resource and contents, the second gives provenance, the third routes to siblings. The key scoping information is front-loaded, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 read-only fetch tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, where the id comes from, how the timezone parameter behaves, and which siblings to use for other data. The annotations cover safety, and the output schema covers return structure, so nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds value by explaining the provenance of show_id (from search/lookup/schedule) and by clarifying that timezone is for rendering episode air times, which reinforces the schema's description. This goes slightly beyond the baseline 3.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('a television show by its TVmaze id'), and enumerates exactly what is included: full profile, weekly broadcast slot, season list, and previous/next episode when available. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming tvmaze_search_shows, tvmaze_lookup_show, tvmaze_get_episodes, and tvmaze_get_cast, so an agent can clearly tell it apart.

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 explicitly says this is the entry point for an id returned by tvmaze_search_shows or tvmaze_lookup_show, and explicitly routes the agent to tvmaze_get_episodes for the episode list and tvmaze_get_cast for credits. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: when a show is absent from TVmaze, the tool reports a miss with guidance rather than raising an error. This edge-case disclosure goes beyond what the annotations and schema provide.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and use case come first, and the miss-handling behavior is a distinct, valuable second sentence. Every element earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, the annotations cover safety and idempotency, the output schema documents the return value, and the description covers the failure mode. No necessary information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each source variant and external_id pattern fully documented. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating the three catalogs, so the schema carries the semantic weight. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 names a precise verb and resource: resolve an external catalog id (IMDb, TheTVDB, TVRage) into a TVmaze profile. It also conveys the distinguishing scope — this is a cross-reference lookup, not a search or a direct TVmaze-id fetch — which separates it from siblings like tvmaze_get_show and tvmaze_search_shows.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this to cross a show id from another source into TVmaze.' This is clear contextual guidance. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the use case is unambiguous enough that an agent can route correctly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context on top: fuzzy matching behavior, the hard-capped result set, the lack of pagination, and the exact data fields returned. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide and contradicts nothing.

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?

Three purposeful sentences: the first defines the operation and return value, the second covers matching and limits, and the third routes to the correct alternative. No filler, no repetition, and the most important 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 single-parameter read-only search tool, this description is fully self-sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does, what data it returns, its fuzzy behavior, its pagination limitations, and how to choose a sibling tool. The presence of an output schema means return-value details don't need to be restated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an extra layer of guidance beyond the schema by explaining that narrowing the query is required to reach results beyond the hard cap, which gives the agent a strategy for using the query parameter effectively.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search television shows by title', then enumerates exactly what each match returns. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tvmaze_lookup_show by explicitly stating it handles the reverse direction, making tool selection unambiguous.

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 clear usage context: it tells the agent this is the right tool for title-based fuzzy search and explicitly says to use tvmaze_lookup_show when starting from an IMDb or TheTVDB id. It also documents the practical constraint of the 10-result cap and the strategy of narrowing the title.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.