genre_tv_listRetrieve a comprehensive list of TV show genres from The Movie Database (TMDB) to categorize and filter television content.
Get list of TV genres
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "genre_tv_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get list' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what format the list returns (e.g., IDs, names, hierarchical), or if it's cached/static data. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 perfectly concise at three words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted language. Every word ('Get', 'list', 'TV genres') earns its place in communicating the core functionality.
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 simplicity (0 parameters) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., array of genre objects with ids/names), whether it's comprehensive or filtered, or how it relates to other TV tools. For a tool with no structured output documentation, more context is needed.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since there are none, and the schema already documents the empty object structure completely.
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 'Get list of TV genres' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('TV genres'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish from its sibling 'genre_movie_list' beyond the 'TV' vs 'movie' distinction, which is implicit but not explicit.
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. With sibling tools like 'tv_details' or 'tv_popular' that might also involve genres, there's no indication of when this specific genre list retrieval is appropriate versus getting genre information through other means.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.