ChartMogul MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. It mentions the return type ('created plan group object'), but without an output schema, this is vague. More behavioral context is needed 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 and efficiently lists requirements in a single sentence. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating requirements from returns). Overall, it's concise and to the point.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a mutation tool with nested objects, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details, error handling, and comprehensive parameter guidance. For a creation tool in this context, more completeness is needed.

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 must compensate. It specifies required fields ('name' and 'plans') and that all fields go in the 'data' dict, adding meaning beyond the generic schema. However, it doesn't detail data types, constraints, or optional parameters, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 action ('Create plan group') and resource ('plan group'), and specifies it's for the ChartMogul API. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_plan' or 'update_plan_group' by focusing on group creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_plan_groups' or 'retrieve_plan_group' beyond the verb, missing some sibling context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions required fields but doesn't specify prerequisites, use cases, or contrast with other tools like 'create_plan' or 'update_plan_group'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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