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 detailing the return structure (complete invoice object with nested arrays for line_items and transactions) and specifying required parameters. It lacks information on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, but provides substantial behavioral context beyond basic retrieval.

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, followed by return details and parameter specifics. It could be slightly more concise by avoiding repetition (e.g., 'full' in both line_items and transactions), but every sentence adds value, and it's well-structured for clarity.

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 and no output schema, the description provides good completeness for a retrieval tool: it explains the action, return data structure, and parameters. It lacks details on error cases or API limits, but for a tool with 2 parameters and no complex behavior, it's largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It adds significant meaning by explaining 'uuid' as 'invoice UUID' and 'validation_type' with its allowed values ('valid', 'invalid', or 'all') and purpose ('control included invoices'), which are not evident from the schema alone. This fully documents both parameters.

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 invoice by UUID') and resource ('invoice'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_invoices' (which returns multiple) and 'import_invoices' (which creates). 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 by specifying it retrieves a 'specific' invoice, suggesting it should be used when you have the UUID, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'list_invoices' or provide exclusions. It mentions the 'validation_type' parameter but not its impact on tool selection.

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