connect_todoistConnect Todoist. For security your API token is entered directly in Local MCP's own settings window — never passed through the AI. Call this to get the instructions, or to check whether Todoist is already connected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| message | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / api_tokenRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Your Todoist API token (a 40-char hex string)",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "api_token"
-]New value: +[]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds important security context: the API token is entered directly in Local MCP's settings and never passed through the AI. It also clarifies the tool's behavior (returns instructions or connection status), going beyond the minimal annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and includes a valuable security note without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, when to call it, and a critical security behavior. No important context is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description appropriately describes what the tool does instead of parameter details, meeting the baseline for no-parameter tools.
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's purpose: to get instructions for connecting Todoist or check if it's already connected. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like disconnect_todoist and todoist_* task management tools.
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?
It explicitly says 'Call this to get the instructions, or to check whether Todoist is already connected,' giving clear guidance on when to use it. It does not mention alternatives, but the context makes them obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.