using "serviceable" to mean "decent but not great"

[kttlt]

Is it correct to say something is serviceable with the meaning that it is of acceptable, but rather unimpressive, quality? For example, when referring to a piece of media. That's how I've been using the word for a while, but it seems that's not quite what it means, according to the dictionaries I've since consulted. They mostly define it as a synonym for "usable" and "functional". Is there, perhaps, a better word for the meaning I'm after?

 

[SoothingDave]

"Serviceable" can indeed convey the connotation that something is merely adequate.

 

[probus]

@kttlt if you are not aware of onelook.com, we often recommend it to learners. It is a compendium of over a thousand dictionaries and therefore better than any single dictionary.

 

[kttlt]

@kttlt if you are not aware of onelook.com, we often recommend it to learners.

Thank you, I was not aware of it. I've been mostly using Cambridge Dictionary, and Collins Dictionary to occasionally double-check some things. Neither provided the definition I was looking for. However, the very first link on OneLook directs to Merriam-Webster, which does have "of adequate quality" definition, so I can tell right away that it is very helpful.