Todoist MCP Server

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly warns 'This action cannot be undone' and 'The task will be permanently removed', which reinforces the destructive nature. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description provides crucial user-facing warnings about irreversibility, enhancing transparency.

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 main action, uses a warning icon for emphasis, and includes structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the warning highlights critical behavior, and the structured parts clarify inputs and outputs without redundancy.

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 complexity (a destructive operation with one parameter) and the presence of annotations (e.g., destructiveHint=true) and an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is complete. It covers purpose, irreversible nature, parameter meaning, and expected confirmation, leaving no significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter by specifying that 'params' contains 'task_id: The task ID to delete'. Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema has no descriptions for properties), this compensates well by explaining the parameter's purpose, though it could provide more detail on format or constraints.

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 specific action ('Permanently delete a task') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'todoist_complete_task' or 'todoist_update_task' by emphasizing permanent removal. The verb 'delete' is precise and the resource 'task' is unambiguous.

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 (to permanently delete a task) and includes a warning about irreversibility, which helps differentiate it from alternatives like 'todoist_complete_task' or 'todoist_reopen_task'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives.

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