RTM 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 offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('Archive') which implies a mutation (not read-only), but doesn't disclose if this is reversible (though 'unarchive_list' sibling suggests it might be), what permissions are required, or side effects. It mentions a return value but not what 'Updated list details' entails.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Archive a list.') and uses a structured format (Args/Returns) efficiently. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, and the subsequent lines clarify input/output without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and parameter meaning, but lacks context on usage guidelines, behavioral details (like reversibility or permissions), and doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap. For a mutation tool with no annotations, it's adequate but has 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'list_name' is the 'Name of the list to archive', which provides basic semantics beyond the schema's type/requirement. However, it doesn't clarify format (e.g., case-sensitivity, existence validation) or other constraints, leaving gaps. With 1 parameter, baseline is 4, but incomplete compensation lowers it.

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 ('Archive') and resource ('a list'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_list' (destructive removal) and 'unarchive_list' (reverse operation), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description goes beyond tautology by specifying what gets archived.

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 'delete_list' or 'rename_list'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., list must exist, user permissions) or consequences (e.g., archived lists might be hidden but recoverable). The context is implied but not explicit.

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