Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

boxofficemojo_showdowns

Retrieve Box Office Mojo showdowns that compare groups of movies, returning names, IDs, URLs, release counts, total grosses, and top releases for box office analysis.

Instructions

Box Office Mojo showdowns. Returns Box Office Mojo's showdowns, which compare groups of movies. Each row has the showdown name, showdown_id, path, url, num_releases, total_gross and the top_release with its gross, when Box Office Mojo shows them. Takes no parameters.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.6.0
  2. Removedv1.6.0
  3. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the returned row shape (name, showdown_id, path, url, num_releases, total_gross, top_release with gross) plus the availability caveat 'when Box Office Mojo shows them'. It is a read-only listing and no destructive or auth behavior is implied. It stops short of stating anything about pagination or completeness, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, then the return contract. The field enumeration is longer than strictly necessary but earns its place since no output schema exists to convey it. No filler sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema listing tool, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and noting the availability caveat. The main missing context is how this differs from the singular showdown sibling, which would help routing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly confirms 'Takes no parameters', removing any ambiguity for the caller.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (returns) and resource (Box Office Mojo showdowns), and even defines what a showdown is ('compare groups of movies'), so the agent understands the concept without external knowledge. It does not explicitly differentiate from the singular sibling boxofficemojo_showdown, which is the only remaining gap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as boxofficemojo_showdown or boxofficemojo_franchises. 'Takes no parameters' is the only operational note, which tells the agent how to call it but not when to prefer it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools