Firestore Todo List MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action of updating fields. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether updates are idempotent, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the impact on existing data. The mention of 'existing todo item' implies mutation but lacks depth.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It could be slightly more structured by grouping fields or adding brief context, but it avoids redundancy and wastes no words.

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 complexity (9 parameters, mutation operation) and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and error handling. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the schema covers parameters well, making it minimally adequate but with clear 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%, so the schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing some updatable fields (text, completed, dueDate, role) but omits others like archived, completionNotes, and classification, and doesn't clarify semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Update fields') and resource ('existing todo item'), and lists specific fields that can be updated. It distinguishes from siblings like create_todo (new items) and delete_todo (removal), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from complete_todo which might overlap with updating the completed field.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like complete_todo or create_todo. It mentions updating fields but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing todo ID) or contextual cues (e.g., use for partial updates vs. complete_todo for marking as done).

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