Todoist MCP Server

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: the temporal check warning about LLM year defaults, support for natural language dates, priority scale explanation (4=highest/red), and return value details. Annotations provide basic hints (readOnly=false, destructive=false), but the description enriches this with practical implementation guidance.

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 efficiently structured: purpose statement, critical warning, key behavioral notes, then organized parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 mutation nature (readOnlyHint=false), 8 parameters with no schema descriptions, and presence of output schema, the description provides complete context: purpose, warnings, parameter semantics, behavioral details, and return information. It adequately compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 description fully compensates by explaining all 8 parameters in detail: content, description, project_id defaults, due_string examples, due_date format, priority scale, labels usage, and parent_id purpose. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema with examples, defaults, and clarifications.

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 task in Todoist', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like todoist_update_task (modify existing) and todoist_delete_task (remove).

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 for when to use this tool (creating new tasks) and includes a temporal check warning about due_date years. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like todoist_update_task for modifying existing tasks.

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