todoist-v1-mcp-server

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds value by specifying the return format details ('full project details including name, color, parent project, comment count, sharing status, and view style'), which provides useful context beyond annotations. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise list of return details. Both sentences are essential, with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the purpose and return details, but could improve by explicitly mentioning when to use versus sibling tools. The annotations provide strong behavioral context, compensating for minor gaps.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the format of 'project_id' or elaborating on 'response_format' options. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 ('Retrieve a single Todoist project') and resource ('by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'todoist_get_projects' (plural) which retrieves multiple projects. The verb 'retrieve' 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 'by its ID' and listing the returned details, which helps differentiate it from 'todoist_get_projects'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'todoist_get_projects' or 'todoist_get_task', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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