ChartMogul MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return content ('CFL syntax rules, complete field-by-field reference with all operators and value formats, and practical examples'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a read-only documentation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured and concise, with three sentences that each add value: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines, and the third details the return content. There is no wasted text, and information is front-loaded for clarity.

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 the tool's complexity (simple documentation retrieval with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and return details. However, it could be more complete by mentioning any prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or behavioral traits like response format, though this is less critical for a zero-parameter tool.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. It appropriately focuses on the tool's output rather than inputs.

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's purpose: 'Get comprehensive list of ChartMogul Filtering Language (CFL) fields and operators.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('CFL fields and operators'), and scope ('complete documentation for filtering metrics endpoints'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on customer data, metrics, or CRUD operations rather than documentation retrieval.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this tool when you need to know what fields are available for the filters parameter in metrics endpoints, their types, supported operators, and examples.' It provides clear context for usage (filtering metrics endpoints) and implies an alternative approach (not using it when filtering knowledge is already known), though it doesn't name specific sibling alternatives since this is a unique documentation tool.

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