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 'Get a project by ID' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the ID is invalid (e.g., error handling), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe use.

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 extremely concise—just four words—and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly. It efficiently conveys the basic purpose without unnecessary detail.

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 (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what is returned (e.g., project details), error conditions, or usage context. For a tool with no structured output information, the description should provide more completeness to guide the agent effectively.

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 'project_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 project by ID' clearly states the action (get) and resource (project), but it's vague about what 'get' entails—does it retrieve metadata, full details, or something else? It distinguishes from siblings like 'todoist_list_projects' by specifying retrieval by ID rather than listing all, but lacks specificity about the scope of information returned.

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 over 'todoist_list_projects' when a specific project ID is known, or mention prerequisites like needing a valid project ID. The context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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