tmdb-mcp

Similar titles

get_recommendations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find movies or TV shows similar to a given title, based on what fans also liked. Use for "something like X" requests and check streaming availability separately.

Instructions

Titles that people who liked a given movie or show also liked. Use for "something like X" requests; combine with get_watch_providers to check availability.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "mediaType": "<mediaType>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_recommendations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	TMDB id of the title to base recommendations on
`page`	No
`mediaType`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	Yes
`results`	Yes
`totalPages`	Yes
`totalResults`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add the non-obvious fact that results are collaborative-filtering based rather than keyword-similar, but says nothing about pagination limits (page max 500) or result volume.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences with the core semantics front-loaded and the practical follow-up second. No filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. For a 3-parameter tool this is close to complete; the only real gap is the undocumented page/mediaType parameters.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33% — id is documented, but page and mediaType carry no descriptions. The description compensates for none of this: it never explains what id refers to (a TMDB id), what mediaType controls, or how paging works.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific resource and its derivation clearly: 'Titles that people who liked a given movie or show also liked.' This distinguishes it from search_movies/search_tv_shows (query-driven) and discover (filter-driven), though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('something like X' requests) and a follow-up action (combine with get_watch_providers), which is real routing guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it, e.g. when the user wants to search by title text.

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

Deploy Server