TMDB MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search returns 'basic info' and lists some fields, but doesn't cover important aspects like pagination behavior (implied by the 'page' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether results are filtered/sorted. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, input, and output without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Search for people by name') and adds necessary details about return fields. Every part 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 the tool's moderate complexity (search with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and return fields but lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination mechanics, error handling, or result structure. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps that could hinder effective tool use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'page') adequately. The description adds marginal value by implying the 'query' parameter is for person names and that results include movies/TV shows, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with specific verb ('Search for people') and resource ('people (actors, directors, producers, crew)'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_movies or search_tv_shows. It specifies the search criteria ('by name') and the type of information returned ('basic info including profile photo, known for department, and movies/TV shows they're known for').

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 context by specifying 'search for people by name' and listing return fields, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_person_details (which might retrieve detailed info for a known person ID) or search_movies/search_tv_shows (for content rather than people). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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