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. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns task ID). It also doesn't clarify if this is an atomic operation or if partial failures are possible with multiple optional fields.

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 new task') and mentions key optional features. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. Perfectly sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation.

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 creation tool with 15 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description lacks behavioral context (no annotations) and doesn't explain return values. It's complete enough for basic understanding but leaves gaps for effective agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 15 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional due date, priority, labels, and project/section assignment' - which only covers 5 of the 15 parameters. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema.

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 'Create' and resource 'new task', specifying it's for task creation. It lists optional fields (due date, priority, labels, project/section assignment) which helps distinguish it from other creation tools like todoist_create_project or todoist_create_label. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from todoist_create_tasks_batch (batch creation) or todoist_update_task (updates existing tasks).

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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over todoist_create_tasks_batch for multiple tasks, or when to use todoist_update_task instead for modifying existing tasks. No prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases are provided.

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