Todoist MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('permanently'), which is critical, but lacks other behavioral traits: it doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid project ID), or what happens to associated tasks/comments. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a project permanently'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place by emphasizing the irreversible nature.

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 tool's complexity (destructive mutation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses critical context: no guidance on prerequisites, error handling, or what to expect after deletion (e.g., success confirmation or side effects). For a permanent deletion tool, this leaves the agent under-informed about risks and outcomes.

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 the single parameter 'project_id' documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the parameter is needed for deletion. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with additional semantics like format examples or sourcing guidance.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a project'), specifying it's a permanent deletion. It distinguishes from siblings like 'todoist_update_project' by indicating destruction rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete operations like 'todoist_delete_task' or 'todoist_delete_section', though the resource name makes this somewhat implicit.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing project ID from 'todoist_get_project' or 'todoist_list_projects'), warn about irreversible consequences, or suggest alternatives like archiving or updating instead. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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