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 discloses that this is a mutation operation ('Update'), specifies what fields are modifiable, and mentions the return format ('updated plan object'). However, it lacks details about permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or whether changes are reversible/destructive.

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 in three sentences: purpose statement, parameter details, and return value. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanation could be slightly more organized. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good parameter semantics and basic behavioral context but lacks comprehensive details about error handling, authentication requirements, or response structure. It's adequate but has clear gaps given the complexity of updating subscription plans.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'uuid' as the identifier and 'data' as a dict containing specific modifiable fields (name, interval_count, interval_unit) with detailed constraints and examples. 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('subscription plan') with specific context (ChartMogul API). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_plan' by focusing on modification rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_plan_group' beyond the resource name.

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 modifying subscription plans and mentions required parameters, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'update_plan_group' or 'retrieve_plan'. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites beyond required parameters are stated.

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