sourcesWatchmode streaming directory — all sources/services worldwide (Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, Prime Video, etc.) with IDs, name, type (subscription/free/rent/buy), regions, logo. Use as a directory before filtering list_titles by source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide safety hints (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds value by detailing the output content (IDs, name, type, regions, logo) and scope (worldwide), which enhances behavioral understanding beyond the annotations.
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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first states what the tool is, the second gives usage advice. No wasted words, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.
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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and usage context. It explains the content of the output and provides a usage scenario, making it complete for a simple directory tool.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary param info, so a score of 4 is appropriate.
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 is a directory of all streaming sources worldwide, listing IDs, name, type, regions, and logo. It distinguishes from related tools by advising use before filtering 'list_titles' by source, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'title_sources'.
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 explicitly says to use this tool as a directory before filtering 'list_titles' by source, providing clear usage context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is effective for its intended role.
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.