ChartMogul MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation operation and mentions the return type ('created contact object'), but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or side effects. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: one for the action and parameters, one for the return. It's front-loaded with key information, though the parameter list is somewhat dense and could benefit from bullet points for readability.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error cases, or the format of the returned contact object, leaving gaps in completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage with one complex parameter ('data'). The description compensates by listing all fields within 'data', including required/optional status and data types. This adds significant value beyond the schema, though it doesn't fully explain the structure of nested objects like the 'custom' array.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new contact in the ChartMogul API, specifying the verb ('create') and resource ('contact'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_contacts' and 'update_contact' by focusing on creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools like 'create_customer'.

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 description implies usage by listing required and optional parameters, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_customer' or 'update_contact'. It mentions the API context but lacks context-specific rules or exclusions.

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