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: default limit of 20 with a warning about token usage, pagination behavior, and the structure of returned task objects. It doesn't mention authentication requirements or rate limits, but covers key operational constraints.

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: purpose, limit warning, return format, filters, and example. Each sentence adds value, though the example could be more concise. The information is front-loaded with the most critical details first.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides comprehensive coverage: purpose, constraints, return format, all parameters with semantics, and pagination behavior. The main gap is lack of explicit sibling tool differentiation, but otherwise it's quite 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 6 parameters: it lists all filter options (customer_uuid, assignee, due_date_on_or_after, estimated_close_date_on_or_before, completed) and the limit parameter with its default value. It provides format details (ISO 8601 dates, email format for assignee) and semantic meaning for each filter.

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: 'List CRM tasks' from the ChartMogul API. It specifies the resource (CRM tasks) and verb (list), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_activities' or 'list_opportunities' that also list different resources.

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 some usage context through the 'LIMIT WARNING' and filter examples, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_activities' or 'retrieve_task'. The filter guidance is helpful but not comprehensive about tool selection.

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