Fetch domestic release-schedule rows for one Box Office Mojo calendar date. Use boxofficemojo_calendar for the broader schedule or boxofficemojo_date_domestic for that date's box-office chart.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Calendar date in YYYY-MM-DD format |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / date / descriptionAdded value: +"Calendar date in YYYY-MM-DD format"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety/scope profile is already covered. The description adds the useful detail that rows are 'domestic' and scoped to a single date, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or ordering. Given an output schema exists, this is adequate rather than rich.
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?
Two sentences, no waste. Purpose is front-loaded; the routing guidance is appended, which is the right order for an agent scanning for a selection cue.
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?
With an output schema available and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to nail scope + routing, and it does both. The one gap is that it doesn't clarify ordering/row count of the release schedule, but that is minor.
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% and the single 'date' parameter is documented as YYYY-MM-DD. The description reinforces the 'one date' semantics, which is meaningful given the sibling tools take other scopes, but adds no format information beyond the schema. Baseline for a fully-documented single param is ~4.
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?
States a specific verb (Fetch), resource (domestic release-schedule rows), and scope (one Box Office Mojo calendar date). Explicitly distinguishes itself from three siblings — boxofficemojo_calendar, boxofficemojo_date_domestic, and boxofficemojo_calendar_changes.
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?
Names both alternatives and the condition that selects them (broader schedule, or the box-office chart for that date). Doesn't spell out when NOT to use this tool, but the routing is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.