Crawlora MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rottentomatoes_person

Rotten Tomatoes person detail and filmography. Returns Rotten Tomatoes celebrity/person metadata and filmography rows. Pass exactly one of path or url.

Instructions

Rotten Tomatoes person detail and filmography. Returns Rotten Tomatoes celebrity/person metadata and filmography rows. Pass exactly one of path or url.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Absolute https://www.rottentomatoes.com person URL
`path`	No	Rotten Tomatoes person path
`sort`	No	Filmography sort order. Omit for newest.
`after`	No	Filmography pagination cursor: pass data.page_info.end_cursor from the previous response.
`limit`	No	Filmography page size. Defaults to 20; a value above 100 is lowered to 100; a negative value is rejected.
`media_type`	No	Filmography list to page: movie or tv. Omit to use the page's embedded first page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.17.18Nov 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / after

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filmography pagination cursor: pass data.page_info.end_cursor from the previous response.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / limit

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filmography page size. Defaults to 20; a value above 100 is lowered to 100; a negative value is rejected.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / media_type

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filmography list to page: movie or tv. Omit to use the page's embedded first page.",
+  "enum": [
+    "movie",
+    "tv"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / sort

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filmography sort order. Omit for newest.",
+  "enum": [
+    "newest",
+    "oldest",
+    "audience_highest",
+    "audience_lowest",
+    "critic_highest",
+    "critic_lowest"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

Addedv1.1.0Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (person metadata plus filmography rows) and the exactly-one-of path/url constraint, but says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when a person has no filmography.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and return content, ending with the key constraint. Minor waste in repeating 'Rotten Tomatoes' twice in the first two 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does the important work of naming what comes back. It is nearly complete for a 6-param read tool, though it never explains how `media_type` and `sort` relate to the filmography list it advertises.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description still adds real value by stating that exactly one of `path` or `url` must be passed — a mutual-exclusivity rule the schema does not enforce, since required is empty.

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+resource: person detail plus filmography, and names what is returned (metadata and filmography rows). It does not differentiate from the nearby rottentomatoes_critic tool, leaving an agent to guess whether a critic is fetched here or there.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied — you must already hold a person path or URL, which suggests a prior rottentomatoes_search call, but that is never stated. No when-not guidance and no mention of the critic or search siblings as alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

rottentomatoes_person

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools