Returns normalized release-group rows from Box Office Mojo's public worldwide yearly chart. year: Box office year, from 1977 through 2100. Use boxofficemojo_year_domestic to retrieve box Office Mojo domestic yearly box office.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | Box office year, from 1977 through 2100 |
| 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 / year / descriptionAdded value: +"Box office year, from 1977 through 2100"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only, external-data profile is covered. The description adds the source (Box Office Mojo's public chart) but discloses nothing about pagination, row volume, or ranking/order of the returned rows, which would be useful for a chart tool.
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?
Three short sentences, correctly front-loaded with the core purpose before the parameter note and the alternative routing. Nothing is padded, though the parameter range is duplicated from the schema and could be trimmed.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the single required parameter is documented in both schema and description. Combined with the sibling routing hint, the definition is nearly complete; only ordering/cardinality context is missing.
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 a single parameter, so the schema fully documents 'year'. The description repeats the same 1977-2100 range without adding syntax or behavior beyond it, matching the baseline 3 for high coverage.
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 ('Returns') and resource ('release-group rows' from the worldwide yearly chart), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the domestic sibling tool. The phrase 'normalized release-group rows' is slightly jargon-heavy but still conveys the shape of the output.
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 a concrete alternative (boxofficemojo_year_domestic) with the condition that selects it (domestic yearly box office), so the agent can route between worldwide and domestic data. It stops short of a full when/when-not framing, but the alternative is explicit.
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.