todoist-v1-mcp-server

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying what data is returned ('section IDs, names, and sort order') and how to use the output with other tools. Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, so the bar is lower, but the description enhances understanding of the tool's behavior in the broader workflow.

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 clarifying context and usage guidance. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

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 (simple list operation), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, usage, and output context. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the description specifying what data is returned, though more detail on output structure could slightly improve completeness.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (project_id and response_format). The description does not add any additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format specifics or examples. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 ('sections within a Todoist project'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for retrieving sections rather than tasks, projects, or labels. It explicitly mentions what sections are used for, which helps differentiate from other list operations like todoist_get_tasks.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool by stating it's for listing sections within a project, and it names specific alternatives (todoist_get_tasks and todoist_create_task) for working with tasks in those sections. This clearly delineates its role versus other sibling tools.

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