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 states the tool retrieves statistics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns aggregated data (e.g., counts, averages), or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what statistics are returned (e.g., counts, time-based metrics), the format of the output, or any limitations. For a tool that likely provides aggregated data, this lack of detail makes it inadequate for effective use by an AI agent.

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 as 'Filter by project ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what happens if the parameter is omitted (e.g., returns global statistics) or format examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 statistics about completed tasks' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('statistics about completed tasks'), but it's vague about what specific statistics are returned (e.g., counts, trends, metrics). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'todoist_list_completed_tasks', which likely lists tasks rather than providing aggregated statistics.

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. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used for analytics instead of 'todoist_list_completed_tasks' for detailed task data, or mention any prerequisites like needing completed tasks to exist.

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