Retrieve normalized Box Office Mojo franchise chart rows, with sorting by total gross, number of releases, or gross-to-date, for film franchise analysis.
Box Office Mojo franchise chart. Returns normalized rows from Box Office Mojo's public franchise 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 carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that rows are 'normalized' and come from a public chart, but it does not state read-only status, default behavior, sorting effects, or what the returned rows actually represent. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation safety hints.
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 short and front-loaded with the tool's resource, then clarifies the output type. It is efficient, though 'Box Office Mojo' and 'franchise chart' are each repeated across the two sentences, creating slight redundancy.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too thin to be fully actionable. It does not explain what columns or fields the normalized rows contain, what the sort options semantically mean, or what distinguishes this chart from the singular franchise endpoint. An agent would still need to guess at the return shape and tool-specific behavior.
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%, so the parameter baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about how 'sort' or 'sortDir' affect the chart, and it does not clarify ambiguous values like grossToDate. It neither compensates for nor contradicts the schema.
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 names a specific resource ('franchise chart') and a specific action ('Returns normalized rows'), making the core purpose understandable. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like boxofficemojo_franchise or boxofficemojo_brands, so some sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the closely related boxofficemojo_franchise, boxofficemojo_brands, or other boxofficemojo chart tools. No alternatives, exclusions, or intended query scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.