Skip to main content
Glama

Save Todo

save-todo
Destructive

Add, update, complete, reopen or delete an item on the team's to-do list for this property. Add a to-do whenever the user asks, and also on your own initiative for concrete follow-ups the conversation turns up (a fix to make, something to re-check on a later date, a test to run) — it is better to note a follow-up than to let it be forgotten. Every time you add, complete or reopen a to-do, say so plainly in your reply (e.g. "Added to the to-do list: ..."), because users do not always read the whole answer. Complete a to-do only when the user says it is done or the data in this conversation clearly shows it; never delete one unless the user asks. Before adding, call list_todos and prefer updating an existing item over creating a duplicate. Write titles as short imperative actions; put context and the reason in notes.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNoOptional context: why it matters, what was found, where to look
titleNoShort imperative action, max 200 characters (required for add)
actionYesadd = new to-do, update = edit fields of an existing one, complete = tick off, reopen = un-tick, delete = remove
todo_idNoThe to-do id from list_todos, e.g. "t:1a2b3c4d" (required for every action except add)
due_dateNoOptional due date as YYYY-MM-DD (e.g. when to re-check a metric). Send an empty string on update to clear it.
propertyYesID of the AIdata property this call targets. Call the list_properties tool to see the properties you can access.
importantNoMark as important (starred)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only flag the tool as non-read-only, non-idempotent and destructive. The description adds real behavioral guardrails beyond that: a hard rule against deleting unless asked, a rule against auto-completing, and the instruction to announce each mutation in the reply. This is substantial context the annotations do not carry.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose and scoping, and every sentence carries actionable guidance; nothing is filler. It reads as one dense block without paragraph breaks, which slightly hurts scannability for a 7-parameter tool.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With a fully documented schema, no output schema, and a destructive multi-action tool, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: usage rules, duplicate avoidance, and mutation etiquette. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines every field, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds usage meaning for two of them – title style ('short imperative actions') and what belongs in notes ('context and the reason') – which nudges it above baseline.

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 first sentence names the exact resource ('to-do list for this property') and enumerates all five operations (add, update, complete, reopen, delete). An agent can distinguish it from the sibling list-todos, which only reads.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use ('add whenever the user asks, and also on your own initiative for concrete follow-ups'), when-not ('never delete one unless the user asks', complete only when the user says so), and an alternative to prefer (call list_todos first, update rather than duplicate). Nothing is left to inference.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources