ChartMogul MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ('complete contact object with all fields including customer associations and custom attributes array'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation (though 'retrieve' implies non-destructive).

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: it starts with the core purpose, then details the return value, and ends with parameter requirements. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it uses clear formatting (e.g., 'REQUIRED:' for emphasis).

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, no output schema, and low schema coverage (0%), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, return format, and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks details on error cases, authentication, or behavioral traits like idempotency. For a retrieval tool with one parameter, it meets minimum viability but has gaps in full context.

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 that the 'uuid' parameter is a 'contact UUID' (string) and marking it as 'REQUIRED', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Uuid' title. However, it does not explain format constraints (e.g., UUID version) or provide examples.

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 specific action ('Retrieve specific contact by UUID') and resource ('contact'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_contacts' (which retrieves multiple contacts) and 'retrieve_customer' (which retrieves a different resource type). It explicitly mentions the ChartMogul API 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 context by specifying 'by UUID' and listing sibling tools like 'list_contacts' suggests this is for single-contact retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_contacts' or 'retrieve_customer', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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