Cozi MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions retrieving details but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage, leaving significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance, with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of retrieving a list with items, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'full details' includes, how items are returned, or any behavioral aspects, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation and output.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'listId' documented as 'The ID of the list to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'a specific Cozi list by ID with all its items', specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from the sibling 'cozi_get_lists' by focusing on a single list rather than multiple lists. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling name for comparison, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 with 'Use this to see the full details of a single list', suggesting it's for detailed viewing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'cozi_get_lists' for multiple lists or provide exclusions, leaving the guidance somewhat vague.

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