TMDB MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('list of TV shows with basic information') which is helpful, but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence states the purpose, the second describes the return format. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by separating concerns more clearly.

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?

For a search tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides basic context about what the tool does and returns. However, it lacks important contextual information about limitations (result count, sorting), error handling, and differentiation from sibling tools. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally explain the return structure more thoroughly.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'search query' but doesn't elaborate on query syntax, matching behavior, or result ordering. The baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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: 'Search for TV shows by name' with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('TV shows'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_movies' by specifying the resource type, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'discover_tv_shows' which might have different functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'search_tv_shows' over 'discover_tv_shows' or 'get_trending', nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or limitations. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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