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. It mentions the return format (complete opportunity object with specific fields) and clarifies amount_in_cents interpretation, which is valuable. However, it doesn't address error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'retrieve' implies read).

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 in two sentences: first states purpose and return format, second specifies the required parameter. Every element earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basics (purpose, parameter, return fields). However, it lacks context about error cases, authentication, or how this fits within the broader API workflow, leaving gaps for agent understanding.

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 and only 1 parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining the uuid parameter is required, specifies it's a string representing an opportunity UUID, and clarifies it's the retrieval key. This adds complete meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 retrieves a specific opportunity by UUID, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_opportunities' by focusing on single retrieval rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other retrieve_* tools like 'retrieve_customer' or 'retrieve_invoice'.

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 when you need a complete opportunity object for a specific UUID, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. 'list_opportunities' or other retrieve_* tools. No guidance on prerequisites or error conditions is provided.

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