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 does well by disclosing key behaviors: the default limit (20), a warning about token usage, the return format (plan group objects with uuid, name, plans_count), and pagination details (cursor/has_more). It doesn't mention authentication requirements or rate limits, but covers essential operational aspects.

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: it starts with the API context and purpose, immediately states the critical limit warning, and details the return format. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse.

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?

For a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, key parameter behavior, return structure, and pagination. It lacks details on error cases or authentication, but provides sufficient context for basic usage given the tool's simplicity.

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, but the description compensates by explaining the 'limit' parameter's default (20) and providing a usage warning. It doesn't detail parameter constraints (e.g., min/max values) or optionality, but adds meaningful context beyond the bare 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 action ('List') and resource ('plan groups'), and explains their purpose ('logical groupings for reporting'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'retrieve_plan_group' (singular) by indicating it returns multiple items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_plan_group_plans' (which lists plans within a group).

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 for listing plan groups, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_plans' or 'list_plan_group_plans'. The LIMIT WARNING offers practical advice but doesn't address tool selection. Usage is contextually implied rather than explicitly stated.

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