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 this is a mutation tool ('Update') and specifies the return format ('Returns updated opportunity object'), but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds some behavioral context but is incomplete for a mutation 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and modifiable fields, followed by parameter requirements. It is appropriately sized with no redundant sentences, though the list of modifiable fields is lengthy but necessary. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical information.

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 covers parameters well and specifies the return type. However, for a mutation tool, it lacks details on authentication, error cases, or behavioral nuances. It is moderately complete but has gaps in safety and operational context.

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 fully documents both parameters: 'uuid' (string, required) and 'data' (dict, required), including detailed semantics for 'data' with field types, formats, enums, and constraints (e.g., 'amount_in_cents: integer', 'currency: "USD", "EUR", "GBP"'). This adds significant value 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('sales opportunity') with specific context ('ChartMogul API'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_opportunity' (creation) and 'retrieve_opportunity' (read). It explicitly lists modifiable fields, making the purpose highly specific and actionable.

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 for modifying existing opportunities (via 'uuid' requirement) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_opportunity' or 'update_contact'. It provides clear context for updating sales data but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to sibling tools.

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