RTM MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get contacts' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what 'Returns: List of contacts' entails (e.g., format, fields). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with two sentences, but the second sentence 'Returns: List of contacts' is redundant given the output schema exists. It could be more front-loaded and efficient by omitting the return statement, as the output schema handles that. However, it's not overly verbose.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on behavior, context, or integration with siblings. For a simple read tool, it's passable but could benefit from more context about 'task sharing' or usage scenarios.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 params, as it avoids redundancy and focuses on other aspects.

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 the tool 'Get contacts for task sharing' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('contacts'), but it's vague about scope or format. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_groups' or 'get_lists' by specifying contacts, but lacks detail on what 'task sharing' entails or how contacts are used.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The phrase 'for task sharing' implies a context, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to other tools like 'get_groups' or 'get_lists'. Usage is implied but not clearly defined.

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