Cozi MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a destructive operation ('permanently removes') and specifies scope ('list and all its items'). However, it doesn't mention permissions, error conditions, or confirmation requirements, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds critical behavioral context (permanent removal). Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with essential information.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the destructive nature and scope but lacks details on permissions, response format, or error handling. Given the complexity, it's minimally viable but incomplete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the listId parameter fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the ID is used for deletion, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Delete a Cozi list by ID') and resource ('list'), distinguishing it from siblings like cozi_remove_item (which removes items) and cozi_get_list (which retrieves lists). It provides a complete verb+resource+identifier combination.

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 context by specifying 'by ID' and mentioning permanent removal, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like cozi_remove_item (for items) or cozi_get_list (for viewing). It provides clear intent but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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