Todoist MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the return content ('Full task details including content, description, due date, and labels') and mentioning the response_format parameter options. This provides useful context beyond the safety profile already covered by annotations.

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 with three clear sections: purpose statement, Args explanation, and Returns information. Every sentence earns its place, though the Args section could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter details into the main flow rather than as a separate bulleted list.

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 annotations cover safety aspects (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent) and there's an output schema (though not shown here), the description provides adequate context. It explains what the tool does, its parameters, and return content. For a simple read operation with good annotations, this is reasonably complete, though could benefit from more explicit sibling differentiation.

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% (parameters have no descriptions in the schema). The description compensates by explaining that params contains task_id and response_format with options 'markdown' or 'json', and that task_id is required. However, it doesn't fully document the GetTaskInput structure or provide examples for task_id format beyond what's implied.

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 'Get details of a specific task' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like todoist_list_tasks (which lists multiple tasks) and todoist_update_task (which modifies tasks). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with todoist_get_project, which has a similar 'get' pattern for a different resource.

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 implies usage when you need details of a specific known task (via task_id), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like todoist_list_tasks (for browsing/searching) or todoist_get_project (for project details). No explicit 'when-not' guidance or prerequisite information is provided.

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