ChartMogul MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('complete plan object with uuid, data_source_uuid, name, interval_count, interval_unit, external_id'), which is helpful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits, which are important for a retrieval tool.

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 in the first sentence and essential details (required parameter and format) following efficiently. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 context by specifying the return object fields, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential errors or authentication requirements, though it's sufficient for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter.

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 significant meaning beyond the schema by specifying that 'uuid' is a 'plan UUID with pl_ prefix' and provides an example format ('pl_eed05d54-75b4-431b-adb2-eb6b9e543206'), which clarifies the parameter's semantics and constraints not in the 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 specific action ('Retrieve specific plan by UUID') and resource ('plan'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_plans' (which retrieves multiple plans) and 'create_plan' (which creates rather than retrieves). The inclusion of 'ChartMogul API' provides context, and the verb 'retrieve' is precise.

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 'specific plan by UUID', suggesting it should be used when you have a plan's UUID, as opposed to listing plans. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. 'list_plans' for multiple plans) or name alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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