Skip to main content
Glama

Tmdb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send Pipeworx Feedback

pipeworx_feedback

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageNoYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
claim_tokenNoRead the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim_token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Read the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "type",
-  "message"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limiting ("Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day"), cost ("Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota"), the anonymous claim_token workflow, and content policy ("don't paste the end-user's prompt"). This exceeds typical transparency.

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 front-loaded with purpose and use cases, and every sentence adds a distinct piece of operational information (exclusions, auth workflow, rate limit, cost, roadmap impact). There is no filler or redundancy; the length is justified by the tool's nuanced usage constraints.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool has 4 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, but the description fully prepares an agent: it covers when to use, when to avoid, how claim_token works, rate limits, cost, and what happens after filing. 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.

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all parameters, including enum values and the nested context object. The description adds minor qualitative guidance about message content ("Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs") and the claim_token usage, but these do not materially change parameter semantics beyond the schema's own documentation.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: "Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist." It enumerates specific feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and distinguishes itself from sibling query tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools by framing itself as a feedback channel.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: "Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise)." It also provides a clear exclusion for tools from other MCP servers and directs the agent to file with that server instead, making the usage boundaries unambiguous.

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