Todoist MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) that's non-destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it mentions the return format ('Created project details including the new project ID') but doesn't cover important aspects like error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with duplicate project names.

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 for Args and Returns, making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized for a creation tool with multiple parameters, though the color enum values could have been referenced rather than listed in full to improve conciseness.

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 that this is a creation tool with annotations covering safety aspects and an output schema presumably documenting return values, the description provides adequate context. It explains the parameter structure thoroughly and mentions the return format. For a project creation tool in a Todoist context, this is reasonably complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (the schema has no top-level description), the description carries the full burden. It provides a clear breakdown of the CreateProjectInput structure with meaningful explanations of each parameter, including the optional nature of parent_id, color, and is_favorite, and the required name parameter. This compensates well for the schema gap.

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 'Create' and resource 'new project in Todoist', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like todoist_create_task or todoist_create_label, which also create resources in Todoist.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like todoist_list_projects for viewing existing projects or todoist_get_project for retrieving a specific project, nor does it explain when creating a project is appropriate versus creating tasks or labels.

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