Retrieves Box Office Mojo brand chart data as normalized rows, sortable by total gross, number of releases, or gross to date. Get structured brand performance metrics for analysis.
Box Office Mojo brand chart. Returns normalized rows from Box Office Mojo's public brand chart.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort field | |
| sortDir | No | Sort direction |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Input schema / properties / sort / enumAdded value: +[
+ "totalGross",
+ "numReleases",
+ "grossToDate"
+]Input schema / properties / sortDir / enumAdded value: +[
+ "asc",
+ "desc"
+]Input schema / properties / sortAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Sort field",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / sortDirAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Sort direction",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.6.0v1.6.0v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'returns normalized rows', but does not explain that it is a read operation, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what 'normalized' means in terms of data transformation.
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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the resource name. However, it could be more informative without being verbose.
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 no output schema, the description should clarify return structure, but it does not. It lacks details on default sort behavior, pagination, or what 'normalized' means. For a chart tool with only two enum parameters, it is adequate but not complete.
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 coverage is 100% so the schema fully documents 'sort' and 'sortDir' with enums. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 it returns the Box Office Mojo brand chart, which is a specific resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling boxofficemojo_brand or boxofficemojo_franchise, but the name is clear enough.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus others like boxofficemojo_brand or boxofficemojo_franchises. The description does not mention any context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.