ChartMogul MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a creation operation (implying mutation) and specifies required/optional fields, adding some behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover permissions, error handling, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a mutation 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details and return info in a single, efficient sentence. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words, though minor formatting could improve 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral details like permissions or error handling. It mentions the return type ('created plan object'), which helps, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by detailing all parameters: it lists required fields (data_source_uuid, name, interval_count, interval_unit) with types and constraints, optional fields (external_id), and clarifies they go in a 'data dict'. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('subscription plan') with specific context ('ChartMogul API'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_plan_group' by focusing on individual plans. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_plan' or 'list_plans', keeping it from a perfect score.

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 for creating new plans, with no explicit when-not or alternatives. It mentions required and optional fields, which hints at prerequisites, but lacks guidance on when to use this versus similar tools like 'create_plan_group' or 'update_plan'.

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