Skip to main content
Glama

Tmdb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Tv

search_tv
Read-onlyIdempotent

TMDb (The Movie Database) — search TV shows by title. Returns show name, first-air date, popularity, overview, poster path, TMDb tv_id. Use to resolve a TV title into the tv_id needed by tv, tv_season, tv_episode.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
yearNo
queryYes
languageNo
include_adultNo
first_air_date_yearNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoCurrent page number
resultsNoArray of TV show 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": "Breaking Bad"
+  },
+  {
+    "first_air_date_year": 2005,
+    "query": "The Office"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "page": {
+      "description": "Current page number",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "description": "Array of TV show search results",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "first_air_date": {
+            "description": "First air date",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "TV show ID",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "TV show name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "overview": {
+            "description": "Show overview/synopsis",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "popularity": {
+            "description": "Popularity score",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the return fields (name, first-air date, etc.) and notes the data source. It does not disclose rate limits or pagination behavior, but the annotations carry most of the transparency burden, making this adequate.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two sentences, which is concise, but the first sentence includes a parenthetical '(The Movie Database)' that could be omitted for brevity. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 description covers the main purpose and use case, and an output schema exists to detail return format. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting, or result ordering, which are typical for search tools. Some guidance on handling multiple results would enhance completeness for a search tool of moderate complexity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to explain any of the six parameters beyond implicitly mentioning that 'query' is a title. Parameters like page, year, language, include_adult, and first_air_date_year are left unexplained. The description adds minimal value over the schema structure.

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 searches TV shows by title, specifies the data source (TMDb), and explicitly mentions its primary use: resolving a title to a tv_id for use by related tools like tv, tv_season, tv_episode. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like search_movie 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use to resolve a TV title into the tv_id needed by tv, tv_season, tv_episode'), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tool list implies other search options exist.

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