Todoist MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal context beyond this, only stating it 'Get details' and specifying the return content. It doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but it doesn't contradict the annotations either.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured clearly, though slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, but it could be more streamlined by integrating the parameter details more seamlessly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, input parameters, and return content adequately. However, it lacks usage guidelines and deeper parameter context, leaving minor gaps for the agent.

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 'params' input structure and its components ('project_id' and 'response_format'), including valid values for 'response_format'. However, it doesn't fully detail parameter semantics beyond what's implied, such as the format of 'project_id' or default behavior. With 0% schema coverage, the description adds some value but not comprehensively.

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's purpose: 'Get details of a specific project.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project'), but it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'todoist_get_task' or 'todoist_list_projects' beyond the singular focus on a specific project. The description is clear but lacks sibling 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'todoist_list_projects' for listing all projects or 'todoist_get_task' for task details, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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