Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Todoist MCP Server

Todoist MCP Server

by greirson
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

todoist_project_collaborators_get

Retrieve the list of collaborators for a shared Todoist project, including their names and emails.

Instructions

Get a list of collaborators for a shared project in Todoist. Returns collaborator names and emails.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "todoist_project_collaborators_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idNoProject ID to get collaborators for (takes precedence over project_name if both provided)
project_nameNoProject name to search for (case-insensitive partial match)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.3

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It fails to state that the tool is read-only, lacks side effects, or mention any authentication or permission requirements. It only describes the return content.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey purpose and return value with no extraneous text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list retrieval tool, the description adequately states the output (names and emails). However, it omits details about output structure (e.g., whether IDs are included), potential pagination, or error conditions, which would be helpful given no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves collaborators for a shared project and specifies the returned data (names and emails). While effective, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'todoist_collaborators_get', relying on the name to imply project-specific scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools like 'todoist_collaborators_get'. The description lacks any contextual hints about prerequisites or conditions for use.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools