Things MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Get all projects' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is paginated, rate-limited, requires authentication, returns all projects at once, or what format the output takes. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.

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 brief but structured with a main statement and an 'Args:' section. However, the formatting is somewhat informal and could be more polished. It's concise but not optimally front-loaded or professionally structured.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description compensates somewhat for parameters but lacks behavioral context. For a simple retrieval tool, it's minimally adequate but doesn't provide enough guidance on usage or operational details to be fully helpful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description adds meaningful context by explaining that 'include_items' controls whether tasks within projects are included. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic boolean type and title, though it doesn't detail default behavior or implications.

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 states 'Get all projects from Things' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('projects'), but it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_areas', 'get_tags', or 'get_todos' that also retrieve different Things resources. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_advanced', 'search_items', or 'search_todos' for filtered queries, or 'get_today'/'get_upcoming' for time-based retrieval. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.

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