Fetch domestic daily box office chart rows for a specified YYYY-MM-DD date from Box Office Mojo. Returns a typed not-found error when the daily page has no data.
Box Office Mojo domestic daily box office. Returns rows from Box Office Mojo's domestic daily chart. Empty upstream daily pages return a typed not-found error rather than an empty success.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Domestic box office date in YYYY-MM-DD format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0v1.6.0v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one valuable edge case (empty upstream pages return a typed not-found error rather than an empty success), but omits read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, and return shape, so it is only partially transparent.
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 sentences, each with a distinct job: identify the resource, state the return, and flag the error behavior. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler, though the first sentence is somewhat label-like.
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?
The tool is a simple one-parameter read with no annotations and no output schema. The description covers purpose and one error edge case, but because no output schema exists it should say more about what 'rows' contain (e.g., columns or fields) and lacks any safety/auth context. Adequate but incomplete.
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 schema already documents the single date parameter and its YYYY-MM-DD format. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
The description states a specific resource (Box Office Mojo's domestic daily chart) and action (returns rows), and the word 'daily' implicitly distinguishes it from sibling charts like weekend_domestic and year_domestic. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling to differentiate itself, keeping it below a 5.
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?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not mention any alternative tools (e.g., weekend or year domestic charts). Usage is only implied by the 'daily' scope, matching the calibration case where a clear resource but no routing guidance scores 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.