Skip to main content
Glama

Tmdb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Movie

search_movie
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search TMDB for movies by title keyword. Optionally filter by year or primary_release_year. Returns title, release date, overview, popularity, vote average, and TMDB movie_id needed by movie and movie_credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
yearNo
queryYes
regionNo
languageNo
include_adultNo
primary_release_yearNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoCurrent page number
resultsNoArray of movie search results
total_pagesNoTotal number of pages available
total_resultsNoTotal number of results

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: +[
+  {
+    "query": "The Shawshank Redemption"
+  },
+  {
+    "page": 1,
+    "query": "Inception",
+    "year": 2010
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "page": {
+      "description": "Current page number",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "description": "Array of movie search results",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Movie ID",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "overview": {
+            "description": "Movie overview/synopsis",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "popularity": {
+            "description": "Popularity score",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "release_date": {
+            "description": "Release date",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "description": "Movie title",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "vote_average": {
+            "description": "Average vote rating",
+            "type": "number"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "total_pages": {
+      "description": "Total number of pages available",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "total_results": {
+      "description": "Total number of results",
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds the specific return fields and the fact that the movie_id is needed by other tools, which is valuable beyond annotations.

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 the purpose, and no wasted words. Efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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?

Given the output schema exists but is not shown, the description lists return fields. However, it misses important context like pagination and other filters, which are needed for full understanding.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description only mentions two optional filters (year, primary_release_year) and implies 'query' is for title keyword. It fails to document 4 other parameters (page, region, language, include_adult), reducing its usefulness.

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 states the verb 'search' and the resource 'TMDB movies by title keyword', and specifies the key output needed by sibling tools. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'discover_movie' and 'search_multi'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly says when to use (search movies by title keyword) and what it returns. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though the context of sibling tools implies differentiation.

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