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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('List of all lists with metadata'), which is helpful, but doesn't address important aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it).

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more specific about what 'metadata' includes.

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 simplicity (2 parameters with defaults, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return format. The main gap is lack of behavioral context (auth, rate limits), but the output schema reduces the need to fully document return values.

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 provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains what 'include_archived' and 'include_smart' do, including their default values, which compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all RTM lists'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from other list-related siblings like 'archive_list' or 'rename_list' beyond the obvious 'get' vs. 'modify' distinction.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it retrieves all lists, there's no mention of whether this should be used for initial discovery, filtering needs, or how it relates to other list operations like 'get_contacts' or 'get_groups'.

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