Todoist MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (indicating mutation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), openWorldHint=true (can create new resources), and idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent). The description adds that it 'Returns created label details including the new label ID,' which provides useful context about the return value. However, it doesn't mention potential constraints like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions beyond what annotations cover.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, context, args, returns) and uses bullet points efficiently. It's appropriately sized at 5 sentences, though the second sentence about label purpose could be considered slightly extraneous. Overall, it's front-loaded with the core action and wastes little space.

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 has annotations covering key behavioral traits (mutation, non-destructive, open-world) and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description provides adequate context. It explains the parameters well despite low schema coverage and mentions the return value. For a creation tool with good annotation support, this is reasonably complete, though it could benefit from more usage guidance.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage (parameter 'params' has no description in schema), but the description compensates by listing the three nested parameters (name, color, is_favorite) and their purposes. It explains that name is required and color is optional with specific values, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully detail color enum values or name constraints like length limits.

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 tool creates a new label ('Create a new label'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like todoist_create_project or todoist_create_task beyond mentioning labels specifically, which is implied but not contrasted.

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 mentions that labels help organize tasks, but doesn't specify when to create a label versus using existing ones or when this tool is preferred over other creation tools like todoist_create_project. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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