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 task object with all details including customer associations and completion status'), which adds value. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation, leaving behavioral gaps for a mutation-heavy sibling 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and parameter requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient 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, no output schema, and a simple parameter set, the description covers the basics but could be more complete. It explains the return content but doesn't address potential errors, authentication needs, or how it fits into the broader CRM workflow with siblings like 'update_task'.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explicitly defines the 'uuid' parameter as a required string for the task UUID, clarifying its purpose and format. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('specific CRM task by UUID'), and specifies the API context ('ChartMogul API'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tasks' by focusing on a single task retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'retrieve_customer' or other retrieve siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 task object with details, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'list_tasks' for multiple tasks or 'retrieve_customer' for customer data. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned beyond the required UUID.

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