Skip to main content
Glama

Tmdb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Person

person
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch TMDB person details by person_id. Returns full name, biography, birthday, deathday, place of birth, known-for department, and profile image path.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
languageNo
person_idYes
append_to_responseNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoPerson ID
nameNoPerson name
birthdayNoBirth date
deathdayNoDeath date
biographyNoPerson biography
popularityNoPopularity score
combined_creditsNoFilm and TV credits (if appended)

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: +[
+  {
+    "person_id": 6384
+  },
+  {
+    "append_to_response": "combined_credits",
+    "person_id": 500
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "biography": {
+      "description": "Person biography",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "birthday": {
+      "description": "Birth date",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "combined_credits": {
+      "description": "Film and TV credits (if appended)",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "deathday": {
+      "description": "Death date",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Person ID",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "description": "Person name",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "popularity": {
+      "description": "Popularity score",
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds specific return fields (name, biography, etc.), providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No mention of errors or rate limits, but overall transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with verb and parameter. Every sentence provides value. No wasted words.

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?

Has output schema, so return value explanation is optional but provided. However, missing parameter explanations for `language` and `append_to_response` limits completeness. Adequate but with gaps.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for 3 parameters. Description only mentions `person_id` implicitly but does not explain `language` or `append_to_response`. Fails to compensate for lack of schema descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and resource 'TMDB person details' with the key parameter `person_id`. Lists returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like `person_combined_credits` or `search_person`.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. Does not mention when not to use or compare to siblings like `search_person` or `person_combined_credits`. Usage is only implied.

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