todoist-v1-mcp-server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: false). The description adds value by specifying the return format ('Returns the created section's ID and details'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential constraints like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides usage context and return value information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (creation operation with 3 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description does a good job by explaining the return value and linking to sibling tools. However, it could benefit from mentioning potential errors or prerequisites (e.g., valid project_id).

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%, with each parameter clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or clarification about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Create a new section') and resource ('within a Todoist project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like todoist_create_project or todoist_create_task. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 by mentioning that the created section ID can be used with todoist_create_task, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like todoist_update_section or todoist_get_sections. It offers some guidance but lacks explicit when/when-not comparisons.

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