List TMDB movie and TV genre IDs for filtering movie or TV lists; use movie IDs with movie filters and TV IDs with TV filters.
List TMDB browse genres. Returns every genre ID advertised by TMDB's public movie and TV browse pages. Use movie values only with movie list filters and TV values only with TV list filters. Credential-free public TMDB data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it returns genre IDs from public pages and is credential-free, but it doesn't disclose the exact structure of the response (e.g., whether it returns a list of objects with id and name, or just IDs). The behavior of returning both movie and TV genres but needing to apply them correctly is indicated, but more detail could be given about the output format.
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 concise, fitting in two sentences. It front-loads the key purpose and then provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value: the first defines what it does, the second clarifies usage and access requirements. 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?
Given the tool's low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It states the purpose, usage constraints, and access requirements. An agent can correctly understand when to call this tool and what to expect, though the exact response format is not detailed, which is acceptable given the description's clarity.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description correctly acknowledges this by stating it simply lists all genres without any filtering or input, making it a simple enumeration tool.
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 lists TMDB browse genres, specifies it returns every genre ID from public movie and TV browse pages, and differentiates its use for movie vs TV filters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like justwatch_genres and boxofficemojo_genre by focusing on TMDB's genres.
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 explicit usage guidance: use movie values only with movie list filters and TV values only with TV list filters. It also mentions the credential-free nature, which helps agents decide to use it for public TMDB data without authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.