genres_tvTMDb TV genre directory: Action & Adventure, Drama, Reality, Documentary, Animation, etc. with genre IDs. Use to filter discover_tv by genre.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| genres | No | TV genres |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "language": "en-US"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "genres": {
+ "description": "TV genres",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Genre ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Genre name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond the annotations by specifying that it returns genre IDs and listing example genres. The annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's additional context is not extensive but still useful.
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 long, compact, and front-loaded with the core identity ('TMDb TV genre directory'). Every sentence serves a purpose: first defines the resource, second gives usage context. No redundancy or unnecessary details.
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 tool's simplicity (1 optional param, annotations cover safety, output schema exists), the description adequately covers purpose and usage. However, it does not mention the language parameter's role in filtering by locale, which is a minor gap.
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 input schema has one parameter ('language') with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain what the language parameter does or how to use it. The only mention is in an example (language: en-US), but the description itself adds no semantic meaning for the 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 clearly identifies the tool as a TV genre directory, provides concrete examples (Action & Adventure, Drama, etc.), and explicitly states its purpose: to filter discover_tv by genre. This distinguishes it from the sibling genres_movie tool.
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 directly states when to use this tool: 'Use to filter discover_tv by genre.' It implies the domain is TV (not movies), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like genres_movie, which would strengthen guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tool set blends two unrelated domains (TMDB and Pipeworx). Among Pipeworx tools, several overlap heavily (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, suggest_questions) with vague boundaries, making it hard for an agent to pick the right one. TMDB tools are distinct but the overall mixture creates confusion about which domain a request belongs to.
All tools use snake_case, which is consistent. However, naming styles vary widely: TMDB tools use simple noun or verb-first names (movie, search_movie, discover_tv), while Pipeworx tools use longer descriptive phrases with prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_arbitrage, entity_profile). The pattern is not predictable across the set.
50 tools is excessive for a server named 'Tmdb'. Only about 18 tools are actually TMDB-related; the remaining 32 belong to the Pipeworx ecosystem. This inflates the count and makes the server feel bloated and unfocused, far beyond a well-scoped TMDB server.
The TMDB portion is quite complete (search, discover, details, credits, recommendations, trending, genres, configuration). However, the server's overall scope is muddled—it tries to cover two disjoint domains, so no single domain feels fully fleshed out. There are also some missing TMDB features (e.g., upcoming/now playing) that would require extra discovery. The Pipeworx tools cover data broadly but overlap in coverage.