Habitica MCP Server

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. 'Delete checklist item' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting task completion), or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and fails to address critical behavioral aspects for a deletion tool.

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 phrase 'Delete checklist item', which is overly concise to the point of under-specification. While it avoids waste, it lacks necessary structure (e.g., not front-loading key details) and fails to convey essential information, making it inefficient for an agent's understanding.

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 (a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'delete' entails (e.g., permanent removal, effects on task status), return values, or error conditions. For a deletion tool in a system with multiple checklist-related siblings, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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?

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. However, schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'taskId' and 'itemId', so the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't compensate or add value, but the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 'Delete checklist item' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what resource is being deleted (e.g., from which system or context) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'delete_task' or 'update_checklist_item'. While the verb 'delete' is clear, the description lacks meaningful elaboration beyond the obvious.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a task ID and item ID), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'update_checklist_item' or 'score_checklist_item'. Without any context, an agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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