tv_seasonFetch details for a specific TV season by tv_id and season_number. Returns season name, overview, air date, episode count, and a list of episodes with name, air date, and overview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tv_id | Yes | ||
| language | No | ||
| season_number | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Season ID | |
| air_date | No | Air date | |
| episodes | No | Episodes in season | |
| season_number | No | Season number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "season_number": 1,
+ "tv_id": 1396
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "air_date": {
+ "description": "Air date",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "episodes": {
+ "description": "Episodes in season",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "episode_number": {
+ "description": "Episode number",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Episode ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Episode name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Season ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "season_number": {
+ "description": "Season number",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds return structure but lacks details on language behavior or potential limits. Acceptable given annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences, purpose front-loaded, no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers essential return fields. With output schema present, description need not be exhaustive. Could mention episode ordering or pagination, but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description mentions tv_id and season_number but does not explain the optional language parameter. Adds some meaning but incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it fetches TV season details by tv_id and season_number, and lists return fields. It distinguishes from siblings like tv and tv_episode.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for season details, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternative tools like tv or tv_episode.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.