todoist-v1-mcp-server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about what data is returned (IDs, names, colors, hierarchy, favorite/shared metadata) and the connection to todoist_get_tasks, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose, second details return data, third provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with core functionality. Efficiently structured for agent comprehension.

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 read-only list tool with comprehensive annotations (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld) and 100% schema coverage, the description provides complete context: what it does, what data it returns, and how to use the output. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes return values.

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 a single parameter 'response_format' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 'List' and resource 'all projects in the user's Todoist account', providing specific scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like todoist_get_project (singular) by emphasizing 'all projects' and mentions hierarchy details not implied by the name/title alone.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use project IDs with todoist_get_tasks to fetch tasks for a specific project.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (to get project IDs for later task fetching) and references a specific alternative sibling tool, though it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it.

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