RTM 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. It states the tool 'Get all notes for a task' and returns a 'List of notes,' but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a structured 'Args' and 'Returns' section. It avoids unnecessary details, though the parameter section could be more concise if semantics were better integrated. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and return value, but lacks behavioral context and parameter semantics. The output schema likely documents the return structure, reducing the burden, but the gaps in usage and parameters keep it from being fully adequate.

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 for undocumented parameters. It lists four parameters (task_name, task_id, taskseries_id, list_id) but provides no semantics beyond their names. It doesn't explain what each parameter does, how they interact (e.g., if multiple are provided), or their expected formats, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get all notes for a task.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('notes for a task'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'edit_note' or 'delete_note' beyond the 'Get' action, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 sibling tools like 'list_tasks' for finding tasks or 'edit_note' for modifying notes, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context.

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