Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Todoist List Tasks

todoist_list_tasks
Read-only

List active (incomplete) Todoist tasks. Optionally scope to a project_id, or pass a Todoist filter (e.g. 'today', 'overdue', '#Work & p1').

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default 50, max 200)
filterNoA Todoist filter query, e.g. 'today', 'overdue', 'p1'
project_idNoOnly tasks in this project (from todoist_list_projects)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYes
tasksYes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context that only active/incomplete tasks are returned and that filtering/scoping is available. It does not discuss pagination or edge cases, but the annotation coverage raises the baseline and the added default-behavior note is valuable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes examples without unnecessary verbosity. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and all parameters documented, the description covers the essential behavior and common use cases. The mention of the default active/incomplete scope and filter examples bridges most gaps. The limit default (50) is and max (200) are in the schema, so not mentioning them here is acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema covers all three parameters (100% coverage), the description enriches the filter parameter with practical examples like '#Work & p1' that are absent from the schema. It also clarifies that project_id scopes results, adding value beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List active (incomplete) Todoist tasks.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like todoist_create_task and todoist_list_projects by narrowing scope to active tasks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by offering optional parameters (project_id, filter) and provides concrete filter examples ('today', 'overdue', '#Work & p1'), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like todoist_list_projects or todoist_complete_task. No direct when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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

All local-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources