Tmdb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No
`language`	No
`media_type`	Yes	all \| movie \| tv \| person
`time_window`	Yes	day \| week

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Current page number
`results`	No	Trending results
`total_pages`	No	Total pages
`total_results`	No	Total results

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "page": {
+      "description": "Current page number",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "description": "Trending results",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Entity ID",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "media_type": {
+            "description": "Media type",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "total_pages": {
+      "description": "Total pages",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "total_results": {
+      "description": "Total results",
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable context: returns ranked list with name, popularity, vote average, overview. Does not disclose pagination details or rate limits, but output schema likely covers return structure.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main action, each sentence adds value: purpose, return fields, use cases. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers core functionality and use cases. Could mention pagination or language defaults, but output schema exists and annotations cover safety. Adequate for a simple trending tool.

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 50% (describes media_type and time_window). Description explains them equivalently to schema ('day or week', 'movies, TV shows, or people'). Does not describe 'page' or 'language' parameters, but examples include page. Partial compensation, not full.

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 it fetches trending movies, TV shows, or people from TMDb for day/week windows. Distinguishes from sibling tools like search_movie or specific entity tools by focusing on trending lists. Includes concrete use cases.

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?

Provides example use cases: 'what is popular this week', 'trending celebrities', 'weekly entertainment summary'. Does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but context implies it's for trending, not specific queries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Tmdb tools Inspect

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.

Tmdb

Trending

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources