TMDB MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get user reviews

get_reviews

Read-only

Fetch user reviews for a movie or TV show, including author, individual rating, and clipped review text. Use the TMDB id from search results to retrieve paginated reviews.

Instructions

Get user reviews for a movie or TV show (author, that one reviewer's own 0-10 rating if they left one — a single person's score, not the aggregate vote_average and not an IMDb/RT/Metacritic value; it can be null, and the review text, clipped to ~1500 characters). Get the id from search_movies/search_tv.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	TMDB numeric id.
`page`	No	1-based page number for pagination (TMDB returns up to 20 results per page, max 500).
`media_type`	Yes	Media type: 'movie' or 'tv'.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	Yes
`results`	Yes
`total_pages`	Yes
`total_results`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedv0.14.0Oct 24, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / author / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / author / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / content / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / content / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

changedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / created_at / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "format": "date-time",
-    "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z))$",
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "format": "date-time",
+    "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z))$",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / rating / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / rating / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / url / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / url / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.10.1Jul 30, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / created_at / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "format": "date-time",
+    "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z))$",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / created_at / default
```
Added value: +null
```

Addedv0.8.1Jul 26, 2026
Removedv0.8.0Jul 22, 2026
First observedv0.3.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real value beyond that: the rating can be null, and review text is clipped to ~1500 characters — a non-obvious truncation behavior worth knowing. It stops short of describing pagination or total-count behavior, so a 3 is fair.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and result, and no filler. The nested em-dash clauses make the seating of the rating caveats slightly hard to parse on first read, but every clause carries needed information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and all three parameters are covered via schema plus the id-source hint. Missing only pagination/total-results guidance for paging through reviews, which matters for a tool capped at page 500.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining where id comes from and by characterizing media_type semantics ('movie or TV show'). The only gap is the page parameter, which the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get user reviews for a movie or TV show') and then explicitly disambiguates the returned rating from aggregate vote_average and from IMDb/RT/Metacritic scores, which is exactly the confusion a sibling like get_ratings would create.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells the agent to obtain the id from search_movies/search_tv, a concrete prerequisite no other wording provides. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this for aggregate ratings — use get_ratings' routing statement, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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