todo_get_foldersLists Microsoft To Do task lists. Requires Microsoft account in Reminders sync (System Settings → Internet Accounts → Microsoft Exchange → enable Reminders).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| count | No | ||
| lists | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description need not restate safety. It adds value by disclosing the non-obvious dependency on Reminders sync and by clarifying that 'folders' are called 'task lists' in Microsoft To Do. This context goes beyond the structured fields and does not contradict them.
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 exactly two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second gives a necessary setup prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of the tool name/title. This is an exemplar of concise, structured tool documentation.
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 simple zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the action and a key prerequisite. It does not describe the return format, but the output schema handles that. The only minor omission is not explicitly confirming that it returns all folders, though 'Lists' implies the full set.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter detail to provide. Schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately adds no redundant parameter information.
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 states 'Lists Microsoft To Do task lists' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly identifies the tool as a read-only list operation for Microsoft To Do, and the qualifier 'Microsoft To Do' distinguishes it from Apple Reminders-based siblings like get_reminder_folders. However, it does not explicitly compare against todo_list_tasks, leaving some differentiation implicit.
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 provides a concrete prerequisite: 'Requires Microsoft account in Reminders sync (System Settings → Internet Accounts → Microsoft Exchange → enable Reminders).' This tells the agent a necessary condition for success. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_reminder_folders or todo_list_tasks, so usage context is implied rather than fully articulated.
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.
Many tools are clearly distinct per app (e.g., chrome_*, safari_*, m365_*), but there is notable overlap between generic file tools like `file_list` and `finder_list`, both listing files; `search_contacts` and `list_contacts` serve similar purposes; `report_friction` and `report_problem` both send feedback to the team. The large number of tools with similar purposes in different domains creates moderate ambiguity for an agent.
The naming convention is very consistent overall: most tools follow a `{app}_action` or `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `chrome_click`, `create_calendar_event`, `list_reminders`). There are minor deviations like `lmcp_install_upgrade` (two verbs) and `complete_omnifocus_task` vs. `complete_reminder` (inconsistent verb placement). Still, the pattern is predictable and readable across the full set.
With 225 tools, the surface is extremely large and heavy. While it covers many distinct domains (browsers, mail, calendar, files, notes, reminders, video editing, web automation, etc.), the sheer number makes it hard to navigate and likely includes many rarely-used tools. This is far beyond the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and feels excessive even for a 'local everything' MCP server.
For many app integrations, the tool set provides solid CRUD coverage (e.g., Calendar has create, read, update, delete; Apple Notes has create, read, update, list, search; OmniFocus has create, list, search, complete). However, some areas are incomplete: for example, there is no tool to create a new Mail folder or delete notes. The 'web' tools lack a clear update/delete for saved sessions. The suite is broad but has notable gaps within individual domains.