Skip to main content
Glama
hevener10

MCP TODO Checklist Server

by hevener10

todo_show

Display details of a specific checklist to view tasks, track progress, and manage items within the MCP TODO Checklist Server.

Instructions

Mostra os detalhes de uma lista específica

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
listTitleYesTítulo da lista

Implementation Reference

  • Handler for the todo_show tool: parses input using showSchema, fetches user's checklists via ChecklistService, locates the specific list by title, and returns its full details as formatted JSON text.
    case "todo_show": {
      console.error('DEBUG - Processing todo_show');
      const params = showSchema.parse(args);
      const userLists = await checklistService.getUserChecklists('current-user');
      const targetList = userLists.find(l => l.title === params.listTitle);
      
      if (!targetList) {
        throw new Error(`Lista não encontrada: ${params.listTitle}`);
      }
    
      return { content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(targetList, null, 2) }] };
    }
  • Zod validation schema for todo_show input, requiring 'listTitle' string.
    const showSchema = z.object({
      listTitle: z.string()
    });
  • src/index.ts:134-144 (registration)
    Tool registration in ListTools response: defines name, description, and MCP input schema for todo_show.
    {
      name: "todo_show",
      description: "Mostra os detalhes de uma lista específica",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          listTitle: { type: "string", description: "Título da lista" },
        },
        required: ["listTitle"],
      },
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool shows details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm if it's safe (non-destructive), specify authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., what happens if the list doesn't exist). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by including key details upfront. There's no wasted text, earning a high score for conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detalhes' includes in the output, potential errors, or behavioral traits. While the schema covers the parameter, the lack of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving gaps for the agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'listTitle' documented as 'Título da lista'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Mostra os detalhes de uma lista específica' clearly states the verb ('Mostra' - shows) and resource ('detalhes de uma lista específica' - details of a specific list), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like todo_add (adds items), todo_complete (marks items as done), todo_create (creates lists), and todo_list (lists all lists) by focusing on showing details of a single list. However, it doesn't specify what 'detalhes' includes (e.g., items, metadata), which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the list must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for editing), or comparisons to siblings like todo_list (which lists all lists) or todo_create (which creates new lists). This lack of contextual guidance leaves the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/hevener10/mcp-todo-checklist'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server