Todoist MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a comment, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a comment ID). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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 purpose ('Create a comment on a task or project') and adds a useful detail ('with optional prefix tags'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (5 parameters, nested object, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the attachment parameter's purpose, the mutual exclusivity of task_id and project_id, or what the tool returns. For a creation tool with multiple parameters, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (e.g., content supports markdown, task_id/project_id are mutually exclusive, prefix has enum values). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional prefix tags', which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 action ('Create a comment') and the target ('on a task or project'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like todoist_delete_comment or todoist_update_comment. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from todoist_add_context_comment or todoist_add_research_comment, which might have overlapping purposes, so it's not a perfect 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like todoist_add_context_comment or todoist_add_research_comment, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid task_id or project_id). It only hints at optional features ('with optional prefix tags'), which is insufficient for clear usage decisions.

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