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. It discloses the return format (array of data source objects with specific fields), mentions the exact match nature of filters, notes case-sensitivity for system values, and provides example filter syntax. It doesn't cover rate limits, pagination, or error conditions, but gives substantial behavioral context beyond basic purpose.

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: purpose statement, return format, filter explanations, usage guidance, and examples in a compact paragraph. Every sentence adds value - no redundant information. It's appropriately sized for a list/filter tool with 2 parameters.

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/filter tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, return format, parameter semantics, and usage guidance. The main gap is lack of information about pagination, rate limits, or error handling, but given the tool's relative simplicity and the detailed parameter coverage, it's mostly sufficient.

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, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters thoroughly. It defines 'name' as exact match filtering, 'system' as billing system type with examples (Stripe, Recurly, Custom) and notes case-sensitivity. It provides example syntax and clarifies these are optional filters (since no required parameters). This adds significant meaning 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 tool's purpose: listing data sources (billing systems connected to ChartMogul). It specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'data sources', distinguishes from siblings by focusing on data sources rather than customers, plans, or other entities, and provides concrete examples of what data sources are (Stripe, Recurly, Custom API).

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 when to use this tool: to list data sources and filter them by name or system. It mentions using results to filter other endpoints, which is helpful guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the context implies it's for data sources specifically.

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