Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official

rottentomatoes_search

Search Rotten Tomatoes movies by query and return up to 20 rows with title, URL, year, tomatometer score, sentiment, cast, and image; no matches return empty results.

Instructions

Rotten Tomatoes movie search. Searches Rotten Tomatoes movies by the required query, returning up to limit rows (default 10, max 20). Each row has the title, URL, release year or start and end year, tomatometer_score and sentiment, certified_fresh, cast and image. No matches returns an empty results array.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoRows to return, default 10, max 20
queryYesSearch query

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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 behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it enumerates the returned fields (title, URL, year/start-end year, tomatometer_score and sentiment, certified_fresh, cast, image) and explicitly states that no matches returns an empty results array. It omits anything about auth, throttling, or ordering, but the return-shape disclosure is substantive for a no-annotation tool.

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 front-loaded sentences with the required input surfaced early and no padding. The opening 'Rotten Tomatoes movie search' lightly duplicates the tool name, but the sizing is appropriate for a low-complexity tool.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description must and does cover the return shape and the empty-result case. For a two-parameter search tool this leaves no material gap an agent would need before invoking it.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both `query` and `limit` are already documented in the schema. The description restates the query requirement and the limit default/max but adds no new meaning (e.g., matching behavior, partial vs exact), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Searches Rotten Tomatoes movies') plus the required input, so an agent instantly knows it is a movie search tool. It does not, however, contrast itself with nearby siblings like rottentomatoes_browse_movies or rottentomatoes_movie, so the 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description only describes what the tool does, not when to prefer it over rottentomatoes_browse_movies, rottentomatoes_movie, or rottentomatoes_browse_filters. There is no statement of conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess at routing.

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