Todoist MCP Server

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint: false), non-destructive (destructiveHint: false), idempotent (idempotentHint: true), and open-world (openWorldHint: true). The description confirms it reopens tasks but doesn't add details like permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the task isn't completed. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded with the core action.

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 (one parameter, simple mutation) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, parameter meaning, and return confirmation. A 5 would require more behavioral context, but it's adequate for this straightforward tool.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions beyond titles), the description fully compensates by clearly explaining the single parameter: 'task_id: The task ID to reopen'. This adds essential meaning, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., numeric vs. string). Since there's only one parameter, a 4 is appropriate rather than 5.

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 ('Reopen a completed task') with the target resource ('task'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like todoist_complete_task (which does the opposite) and todoist_update_task (which modifies without reopening). The verb 'reopen' is precise and 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 implies usage context by specifying 'a completed task', indicating this tool should be used when a task needs to be moved from completed back to active status. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like todoist_update_task for other modifications, which would have earned a 5.

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