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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a 'complete note object with all details including timestamps', which provides some output context. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'retrieve' implies read-only). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and return value, another specifying the required parameter. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the bracketed '[ChartMogul API]' prefix is unnecessary clutter that doesn't add value for tool selection.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the purpose, required parameter, and return format. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention more about authentication, error handling, or what 'complete note object' contains. The lack of sibling differentiation also reduces completeness.

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?

The description explicitly states 'REQUIRED: uuid (string: note UUID)', which adds crucial semantic information beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. While the schema only shows 'uuid' as a string parameter, the description clarifies it must be a 'note UUID' specifically, not just any UUID. This compensates well for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 verb 'retrieve' and resource 'specific customer note by UUID', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_customer_notes' by specifying retrieval of a single note rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other retrieval tools like 'retrieve_customer' or 'retrieve_contact'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'list_customer_notes' for batch operations or other retrieval tools for different resources. The only contextual clue is the REQUIRED field note, which is basic parameter information rather than usage guidance.

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