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 that the tool returns a 'complete plan group object' with specific fields (uuid, name, plans_count, associated plans), which adds useful context about output structure. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the UUID is invalid), authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation, leaving gaps for a mutation-heavy API context.

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: it starts with the core action and resource, followed by return details and parameter requirements in a single, efficient sentence. Every element earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (a retrieval tool in a mutation-heavy API with no annotations and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameter, and return structure, but lacks context on authentication, error handling, or how it fits into broader workflows (e.g., vs. 'list_plan_groups'). The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally detail the return object more thoroughly, which it only partially does.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'uuid' is a 'string: plan group UUID' and marking it as 'REQUIRED', which clarifies the parameter's purpose and format beyond the bare schema. However, it does not provide examples or constraints (e.g., UUID format), leaving some ambiguity.

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 group by UUID') and resource ('plan group'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_plan_groups' (which lists multiple) and 'retrieve_plan' (which retrieves individual plans). It explicitly mentions the API context ('ChartMogul API') and the required parameter, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage: it specifies that this tool is for retrieving a 'specific plan group by UUID' rather than listing multiple groups. It implicitly distinguishes from 'list_plan_groups' by focusing on single retrieval, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or any exclusions, such as prerequisites or error conditions.

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