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 and does so effectively. It discloses critical behavioral traits: default limit (20), warning against excessive requests for token usage, detailed return object structure, and monetary value handling (INTEGER CENTS). This covers key operational aspects beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the detailed return field list is lengthy and could be more streamlined; every sentence earns its place but the structure is slightly dense.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral details (limits, warnings), parameter semantics, and full return value explanation, compensating for all gaps in structured data.

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, so the description must compensate fully. It adds significant meaning: 'uuid' is explained as a required customer UUID string, and 'limit' is contextualized with default (20) and a warning against high values to avoid token usage. This provides essential semantics not in the 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 specific action ('List customer activities') and resource ('subscription lifecycle events'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_activities' (general activities) and 'list_customer_subscriptions' (different resource). It explicitly identifies the API source (ChartMogul API), adding precision.

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 clear context for usage by specifying it's for customer activities and listing required parameters (uuid). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_ustomer_subscriptions' or 'list_activities', missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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