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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it returns a complete customer object with nested fields, specifies critical data format details (e.g., mrr/arr are integer cents), and outlines required input format (UUID with cus_ prefix). This goes beyond basic functionality to include important usage 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating input requirements from output details). No wasted words, but minor improvements in organization are possible.

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 the complexity (retrieval with nested data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool returns (complete customer object with specific nested fields), critical data semantics (mrr/arr as integer cents), and precise input requirements, making it fully sufficient for an AI agent.

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 fully compensate. It adds substantial meaning beyond the minimal input schema by detailing the uuid parameter's required format (string with 'cus_' prefix and UUID pattern like 'cus_de305d54-75b4-431b-adb2-eb6b9e546012'), which is crucial for correct tool invocation.

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 customer by UUID') and resource ('customer'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_customers (which lists multiple) and search_customers (which searches). It explicitly mentions the API context (ChartMogul API) for additional clarity.

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 retrieve a specific customer by UUID) and implies an alternative (list_customers for listing all customers). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to other retrieval tools like retrieve_contact or retrieve_account.

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