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. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: the default limit of 20 items, a warning against excessive token usage, pagination details (cursor/has_more), and example filter usage. However, it does not cover error conditions or authentication requirements.

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, starting with the core purpose and immediately addressing critical warnings. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured for readability (e.g., separating warnings from return details).

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 and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, parameters, behavioral traits (limits, pagination), and return values. It lacks details on error handling or authentication, but for a list tool with good parameter coverage, it is largely complete.

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 significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining all four parameters: data_source_uuid, external_id, and system as filters, and limit with its default and warning. It also provides example values for system and interval_unit, enhancing understanding.

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 tool's purpose: listing subscription plans with pricing/billing intervals. It specifies the resource (plans) and distinguishes it from siblings like retrieve_plan (single plan) and create_plan (creation). The mention of ChartMogul API provides context.

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 plans with filtering options, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like retrieve_plan or list_plan_groups. It provides some context with filters but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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