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 modifies a task (implying mutation), lists modifiable fields with constraints (e.g., max 255 chars for task_details, ISO 8601 formats), and mentions the return value (updated task object). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or side effects, leaving gaps 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the API context and action, then listing modifiable fields, required parameters, and return value in a logical order. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more streamlined by integrating the 'Provide in data dict' note more seamlessly.

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 provides good parameter details and return info, but it's incomplete for a mutation tool. It misses behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error cases, or what happens if fields are omitted. For a tool with 2 parameters and nested objects, more context on usage and constraints would improve completeness.

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 explains both parameters: 'uuid' as a required string identifier and 'data' as a dict containing modifiable fields (task_details, assignee, due_date, completed_at) with specific formats and constraints. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, effectively documenting all parameter semantics.

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 tool updates a CRM task with specific modifiable fields (task_details, assignee, due_date, completed_at) and identifies the API as ChartMogul. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_task' (creation vs. update) and 'retrieve_task' (read vs. write), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more explicit about sibling differentiation.

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 by specifying required parameters (uuid and data) and modifiable fields, suggesting it's for modifying existing tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_task' for new tasks or 'retrieve_task' for viewing, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Guidelines are implied but not comprehensive.

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