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: it discloses the API context ('ChartMogul API'), specifies the return format ('complete data source object' with enumerated fields), and indicates it's a read operation ('Retrieve'). It doesn't mention error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits, but provides solid behavioral context 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 efficiently structured: first sentence states purpose, second details return format, third specifies parameter requirement with example. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and critical information (UUID requirement) is appropriately front-loaded.

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 is quite complete: it covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. The main gap is lack of explicit error handling or authentication context, but it provides sufficient information for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates: it explains the 'uuid' parameter is REQUIRED, provides the exact format ('string: data source UUID like "ds_fef05d54-47b4-431b-aed2-eb6b9e545430"'), and clarifies the 'ds_' prefix pattern. This adds substantial 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 specific action ('Retrieve specific data source') and resource ('by UUID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_sources' (which lists multiple) and other 'retrieve_' tools that target different resources. It specifies the exact object being retrieved with the UUID parameter requirement.

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 when to use this tool: when you need a specific data source identified by its UUID. It distinguishes from 'list_sources' by implication (retrieve specific vs. list all). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives beyond what's obvious from sibling tool names.

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