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. 'Get tasks list' only indicates a read operation without details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage, failing to disclose essential behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise with 'Get tasks list', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, slightly reducing its effectiveness, but it earns credit for brevity and clarity in its minimal form.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., task details, list format) or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with no structured data support, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its full context and 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'type' documented as 'Task type' and an enum list. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but does not compensate or add extra meaning.

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 'Get tasks list' restates the tool name 'get_tasks' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'tasks list' but lacks detail on scope or differentiation from sibling tools like 'get_task_checklist' or 'get_stats', which also retrieve task-related data.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify if this is for general task listing versus specific operations like 'get_task_checklist' for checklist details or 'get_stats' for task statistics, leaving usage context implied at best.

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