Todoist MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies what types of projects are returned (personal, shared, sub-projects) and mentions the return format options, which helps the agent understand scope and output behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second specifies scope, the third gives usage guidance, and the last two clarify parameters and returns. There's no wasted text.

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 covering safety and behavior, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' section), the description is complete. It provides purpose, scope, usage guidance, parameter explanation, and return value overview without needing to duplicate structured data.

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 'response_format' parameter with its options ('markdown' or 'json') and their purposes. However, it doesn't fully cover the nested 'ListProjectsInput' structure or provide additional semantic context beyond what's implied by the parameter name and enum values.

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 'List' and resource 'projects in your Todoist account', making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'todoist_get_project' (singular) and 'todoist_list_tasks/labels' (different resources), establishing clear 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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Use this to get project IDs for creating tasks in specific projects.' This gives practical guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'todoist_get_project' for a single project), missing full sibling differentiation.

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