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 and excels by disclosing key behavioral traits: it warns about a default limit of 20 and discourages higher requests to avoid excessive token usage, describes the return format (note objects with detailed fields), mentions pagination (cursor/has_more), and provides an example. This covers safety, output, and operational constraints effectively.

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 purpose and key warnings. Every sentence adds value (e.g., limit warning, return fields, filters, pagination, example), but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). No wasted text, though minor formatting improvements are possible.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is highly complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits (limits, token usage, pagination), parameter semantics, and return format. This provides all necessary context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without relying on structured fields.

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 fully. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'customer_uuid' and 'type' are filters (with 'type' values 'note' or 'call'), clarifies 'limit' has a default of 20 with a usage warning, and provides an example. This comprehensively documents all 3 parameters.

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 ('List') and resource ('customer notes and call logs'), specifying it's for the ChartMogul API. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_customer_note' (write vs. read) and 'retrieve_customer_note' (single vs. list), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 with filters (customer_uuid, type) and a limit warning, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'list_customer_activities' or 'retrieve_customer_note'. It implies usage for filtered listing but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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