Todoist 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 that context is prefixed with '[Context]', which adds some behavioral detail, but fails to disclose critical traits: whether this is a mutation (likely yes, as it 'Adds'), what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a tool that modifies data with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Add context information to a task') and includes a key detail ('prefixed with [Context]') without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place, 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 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It clarifies the tool's specific purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., mutation effects, error handling) and usage guidelines. For a tool that likely modifies data, more context on permissions or side effects would improve completeness, but it's adequate as a minimum viable description.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('task_id' and 'context'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying that 'context' content will be prefixed, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work.

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 ('Add') and resource ('context information to a task'), specifying that the context is prefixed with '[Context]'. It distinguishes from generic comment tools like 'todoist_create_comment' by focusing on context-specific formatting. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'todoist_add_research_comment', which appears to be a similar sibling tool for adding research comments.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'todoist_create_comment' or 'todoist_add_research_comment'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing task, or exclusions, like not using it for general comments. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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