Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Todoist MCP Server

Todoist MCP Server

by greirson
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

todoist_section_get

Retrieve sections from a Todoist project, including their IDs and names. Provide a project ID to filter, or omit to get sections from all projects.

Instructions

Get a list of sections within a project from Todoist with their IDs and names

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_section_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idNoProject ID to get sections for (optional - if not provided, gets sections for all projects)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool gets a list, but fails to mention that it is a read-only operation with no destructive side effects, nor any other behavioral details such as rate limits or error handling.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get'. While it is concise, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate clauses for clarity), but the brevity is acceptable for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema) and full schema description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks mention of the optional behavior (project_id not provided) and does not clarify that this is a read-only operation distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 100% (the only parameter has a clear description). The tool description adds the return fields ('IDs and names') but does not enhance understanding of the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'sections within a project', and includes what is returned ('IDs and names'). It provides good specificity but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling section tools that also deal with sections, such as archive or create.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for sections (create, delete, update, etc.), the omission of when to use this specific tool is a notable gap.

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