Fetch release-group and market-gross tables from a Box Office Mojo title page; pass exactly one of id, path, or url.
Box Office Mojo title detail. Returns Box Office Mojo title release-group and market-gross tables from a title page. Pass exactly one of id, path, or url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Box Office Mojo title id | |
| url | No | Absolute https://www.boxofficemojo.com title URL | |
| path | No | Box Office Mojo title path |
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, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the returned data (release-group and market-gross tables), which is more than most, but it says nothing about pagination, error behavior, or whether the page must be publicly accessible, leaving meaningful gaps for a fetch 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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the identifying purpose front-loaded before the calling constraint. Every clause earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value information, and it does name the two table types returned. Combined with the calling constraint, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though nothing is said about response size or failure modes.
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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new meaning the schema lacks: all three params are marked optional in the schema, and the description imposes the mutual-exclusivity/one-of constraint. This is the single most valuable sentence in the definition.
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+resource ('Box Office Mojo title detail') and goes further to name the payload ('title release-group and market-gross tables from a title page'). This distinguishes it from generic listing siblings, but it does not explicitly separate it from the closely related boxofficemojo_release, boxofficemojo_showdowns, or datasets_boxofficemojo_item tools.
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 only guidance offered is a parameter constraint ('Pass exactly one of id, path, or url'), which says how to call it rather than when to call it. There is no mention of when this tool is preferable to a sibling such as datasets_boxofficemojo_search or boxofficemojo_release, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.