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. It mentions the tool returns similar shows based on user preferences, but lacks details on behavioral traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second explains the return mechanism. It's front-loaded with the core function and efficiently communicates essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return type but lacks completeness in behavioral context (e.g., safety, errors) and doesn't compensate for the absence of an output schema by describing return values. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (tv_id as TMDB ID, page for pagination). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain format constraints, example values, or how recommendations are influenced by the tv_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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: 'Get TV show recommendations based on a specific show' (verb+resource) and 'Returns similar shows that users who liked the given show also enjoyed' (mechanism). It distinguishes from siblings like 'discover_tv_shows' or 'search_tv_shows' by focusing on similarity-based recommendations rather than discovery or search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_recommendations' (which might be generic), preventing a perfect score.

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 when you have a specific TV show ID and want similar recommendations, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'discover_tv_shows' (which might be for broader discovery) or 'get_recommendations' (if that's a sibling). There's no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with other tools, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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