Todoist MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that updates are partial ('Only provided fields will be updated'), specifies a limitation for clearing due dates, and notes that labels replace existing ones. Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), but the description enhances this with practical constraints, though it doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs.

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 efficiently structured with a brief purpose statement, key behavioral notes, and organized parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with essential information, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (mutation with multiple parameters) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, partial updates, parameter semantics, and a return confirmation. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could improve by addressing prerequisites (e.g., task existence) or error scenarios.

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 description compensates well by detailing all parameters in the 'Args' section, providing clear meanings (e.g., 'task_id: The task ID to update', 'due_string: New due date (natural language)'). It adds semantic value beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on edge cases or interactions between parameters like 'due_string' and 'due_date'.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing task in Todoist'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'todoist_complete_task' or 'todoist_delete_task' beyond the basic action, missing a clear distinction in scope or effect.

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 some implied usage context: 'Only provided fields will be updated' and 'To clear a due date, use the Todoist app' offer basic guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it lacks explicit direction on when to choose this over other mutation tools like 'todoist_complete_task' or 'todoist_delete_task', leaving room for ambiguity.

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