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 delivers excellent behavioral disclosure. It reveals critical implementation details: default limit of 20, token usage concerns, exact return structure with 16 field descriptions, data format warnings (amount_in_cents as INTEGER CENTS), and available filter parameters. This goes far 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 efficiently structured with clear sections (warning, returns, critical note, filters) and every sentence adds value. It's slightly long but justified by the comprehensive information needed for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema. Minor deduction for some redundancy in field explanations.

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 (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, behavioral constraints, detailed return format, parameter semantics, and practical warnings. For a list operation with filtering capabilities, this provides everything an agent needs.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 7 parameters, the description fully compensates by explicitly listing all filter parameters (customer_uuid, owner, pipeline, pipeline_stage, estimated_close_date_on_or_after, estimated_close_date_on_or_before) and mentioning the limit parameter with its default value. It provides meaningful context about what each filter does.

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 ('sales opportunities') with specific context ('ChartMogul API', 'CRM feature'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'retrieve_opportunity' (singular retrieval) and 'create_opportunity' (creation).

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 about when to use it ('List sales opportunities') and includes a LIMIT WARNING with practical guidance ('Discourage requesting more than 20 items'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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