Todoist MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns error handling, or what the output includes (e.g., comment content, author, timestamp). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste—'Get a comment by ID' is direct and appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral traits, which are crucial for a get operation. The tool's complexity is low, but the description lacks sufficient context for reliable agent use.

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 parameter 'comment_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensation needed.

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 'Get a comment by ID' clearly states the action (get) and resource (comment), but it's vague about what 'get' entails—retrieving details, content, or metadata. It distinguishes from siblings like todoist_list_comments (list vs. get by ID) but not from todoist_get_task or todoist_get_project, which share the same 'get by ID' pattern, lacking specificity in verb+resource differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid comment ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like todoist_list_comments for bulk retrieval or todoist_update_comment for modifications, leaving usage context implied but not explicit.

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