Todoist MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that for recurring tasks, completion closes the current occurrence and creates the next one. Annotations cover idempotency (idempotentHint: true) and non-destructive nature (destructiveHint: false), but the description provides specific operational details that enhance understanding.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important behavioral details and parameter/return explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure (purpose → behavior → args → returns) is logical and efficient.

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 moderate complexity (mutation with idempotency), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and returns, though it could briefly mention idempotency or error cases for full completeness.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the parameter in the Args section: 'task_id: The task ID to complete'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't elaborate on format or constraints. With one parameter clearly documented, it meets the baseline for adequate coverage.

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 ('Mark as complete') and resource ('a task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like todoist_reopen_task (which reverses completion) and todoist_delete_task (which removes the task entirely), providing specific 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?

The description provides clear context by mentioning the behavior for recurring tasks, which helps determine when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. todoist_update_task for partial completion) or name specific alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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