Skip to main content
Glama

Tmdb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Movie

movie
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch full TMDB movie details by movie_id. Returns title, tagline, overview, runtime, genres, release date, budget, revenue, vote average, and production companies. Optionally append credits/videos/images via append_to_response.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
languageNo
movie_idYes
append_to_responseNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoMovie ID
titleNoMovie title
genresNoMovie genres
videosNoVideos (if appended)
creditsNoCast and crew (if appended)
runtimeNoRuntime in minutes
overviewNoMovie overview
release_dateNoRelease date
vote_averageNoAverage vote rating

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "movie_id": 550
+  },
+  {
+    "append_to_response": "credits,reviews",
+    "movie_id": 278
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "credits": {
+      "description": "Cast and crew (if appended)",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "genres": {
+      "description": "Movie genres",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Movie ID",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "overview": {
+      "description": "Movie overview",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "release_date": {
+      "description": "Release date",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "runtime": {
+      "description": "Runtime in minutes",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "description": "Movie title",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "videos": {
+      "description": "Videos (if appended)",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "vote_average": {
+      "description": "Average vote rating",
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (title, tagline, runtime, etc.) and the optional append_to_response parameter. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the action and resource, then list the core returns and optional parameter. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 3 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the main purpose and key return fields, but omits the language parameter entirely. Given the complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is functional but misses an important parameter detail, making it less complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It clarifies movie_id (required) and append_to_response (optional append of credits/videos/images) through text and examples. However, the language parameter is not explained, leaving its purpose ambiguous. This partial coverage gives a baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it fetches TMDB movie details by movie_id, specifying the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'full TMDB movie details'. It lists specific return fields, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like movie_credits or movie_videos, which could lead to confusion when only a subset is needed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for retrieving full movie details, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., movie_credits, movie_videos). It also does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

All Tmdb toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources