movie_creditsTMDb full cast + crew for a movie by ID. Returns actor names, characters, order, department, job. Use for "who played X in Y", "who directed Y", "behind-the-scenes credits".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | ||
| movie_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Movie ID | |
| cast | No | Cast members | |
| crew | No | Crew members |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "movie_id": 550
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "cast": {
+ "description": "Cast members",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "character": {
+ "description": "Character name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Person ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Actor name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "crew": {
+ "description": "Crew members",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Person ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "job": {
+ "description": "Job title",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Crew member name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Movie ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, indicating a safe, read-only, and idempotent operation. The description adds that it returns specific fields but does not disclose if there are pagination limits, rate limits, or what happens if the movie_id does not exist. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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-loaded with the core purpose and specific data fields. Every sentence adds value—first defines the tool, second gives usage examples. No redundancy or filler.
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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return format. It covers the core functionality, parameters, and typical use cases. With only 2 parameters (1 required), the description is mostly complete. Minor gaps: no mention of language support or credit count limits, but overall sufficient for a simple tool.
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 that 'movie_id' is used to identify the movie and that the result contains cast+crew fields. However, the optional 'language' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose ambiguous. The description adds some meaning for the required parameter but insufficiently covers all parameters.
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 states 'TMDb full cast + crew for a movie by ID' with specific fields (actor names, characters, order, department, job). It identifies the resource (movie credits) and the action (retrieve). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'movie' or 'person_combined_credits' which could overlap.
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 explicit usage examples: 'who played X in Y', 'who directed Y', 'behind-the-scenes credits'. It guides the agent on when to use the tool but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives for similar queries (e.g., using 'search_person' to find all credits for a person).
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.