list_titlesBrowse and filter the Watchmode title catalog by streaming source, genre, network, type (movie/TV), release date range, and sort order; paginates with page + limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| types | No | ||
| genres | No | ||
| regions | No | ||
| sort_by | No | ||
| networks | No | ||
| source_ids | No | ||
| source_types | No | ||
| release_date_end | No | ||
| release_date_start | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by mentioning pagination (page + limit) and the range of filtering options, which helps the agent understand expected behavior.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded with action verbs and keeps content minimal, avoiding redundancy with structured fields.
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?
Given the tool's 11 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too brief. It does not explain how each parameter interacts, default values, or response format (though output schema exists). The agent would lack crucial details for complex queries.
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?
The description enumerates broad categories of parameters (streaming source, genre, network, type, date range, sort order) but provides no detail on valid values or format for any parameter. With 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient to guide parameter usage effectively.
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 the tool's purpose: to browse and filter a title catalog by multiple criteria. It uses specific verbs ('browse', 'filter') and describes the resource ('Watchmode title catalog') and key filtering dimensions, distinguishing it from siblings like 'title_search' which likely handles name-based search.
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?
The description implies usage for listing and filtering titles but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'title_search' or 'releases'. There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, which is a gap given the number of sibling tools.
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 server packs in three near-identical question-answering entry points (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta which explicitly states it 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly', and ask_pipeworx_grounded), plus overlapping research tools like deep_research and validate_claim — an agent can easily misroute. The Watchmode cluster also blurs title_search vs list_titles and list_titles vs releases. The very detailed descriptions save it from a 1, but the ask_pipeworx_beta duplicate is a genuine selection hazard.
Everything is snake_case and the clusters follow good prefixes — title_detail/title_search/title_seasons/title_sources, polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage/polymarket_fill_risk, ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded. Minor inconsistency: scan_competitor_ai_presence and ai_visibility_check are sibling tools but don't share a naming pattern, and the pipeworx_*/ask_pipeworx*/plain-noun (genres, sources, regions) mix is slightly uneven. Still readable and mostly predictable.
41 tools is heavy, but the real problem is scope: only ~10 of them are Watchmode streaming tools, while the rest are a Pipeworx data-router suite, a Polymarket/Kalshi prediction-market suite, memory, subscriptions, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation. This isn't a focused Watchmode server — it's three or four unrelated product surfaces bolted together under one name. Any single coherent feature area would justify closer to 10-15 tools.
The Watchmode core is actually well covered for a read-only catalog: search, detail, seasons/episodes, source availability, releases, and directory tools (genres/regions/networks/sources) make a complete browse-to-detail flow. But the overall surface is unfocused — AI visibility, npm deps, and llms.txt have nothing to do with the apparent purpose — and several tools are gated (deep_research needs an account, ask_pipeworx_grounded costs extra, ai_visibility_check needs a BYO key), leaving dead ends for anonymous agents.