Create a new Microsoft To Do list by providing its name. Organize tasks under a fresh list when you need a new category.
Create a new To Do list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the new list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation that is not destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'create', such as whether the list is created empty, whether duplicate names are allowed, or any side effects. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single sentence with zero waste. The action and resource are front-loaded, and there is no redundant information. It earns its place entirely.
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?
For a simple create tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. The annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive). The only minor gap is that it doesn't state what the response is or whether creation can fail, but for a simple tool this is acceptable.
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 100%: the only parameter 'name' is described as 'Name of the new list'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. The description's phrase 'new To Do list' aligns with the parameter but doesn't add syntax or format details.
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 'Create a new To Do list' clearly states the verb (create) and resource (To Do list), which is sufficient to distinguish it from siblings like rename_list, delete_list, and list_lists. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the action is specific enough that an agent can tell it apart.
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 when to use it: when a new list needs to be created. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (rename_list, delete_list, list_lists) makes the usage fairly clear. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing, so it's adequate but not exceptional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.