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 adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the default limit (20), warns against excessive token usage, and mentions the return type (plan objects). It does not cover all potential behaviors like error handling or pagination, but provides key operational details.

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, followed by required parameters and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value, but the structure could be slightly improved by separating requirements and warnings more clearly.

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, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, parameters, and key behaviors like limits. It could be more complete by explaining the return structure or error cases, but it provides sufficient context for basic tool invocation.

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 adds meaning by specifying 'uuid' as a required plan group UUID and explaining the 'limit' parameter's default and usage warning. This clarifies semantics beyond the schema's basic types, though it could detail format constraints for UUID.

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 ('plans within specific plan group'), specifying it returns plan objects belonging to the group. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_plans' (general listing) and 'list_plan_groups' (listing groups rather than plans within groups), providing specific differentiation.

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 implies usage by specifying it lists plans 'within specific plan group', suggesting it should be used when targeting a particular group. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_plans' or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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