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 action ('Set') and confirms a return message, but does not disclose critical traits such as permission requirements, whether the change is reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid list name), or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero 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, with the purpose stated first in a clear sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but slightly verbose for a single parameter; however, every sentence adds value without waste. It could be more concise by integrating the parameter explanation into the main description.

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 moderate complexity (a mutation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: Confirmation message'), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. With no annotations and incomplete context, it meets the baseline but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter 'list_name' by explaining it is 'Name of the list to set as default.' This clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's basic type definition. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description effectively compensates by providing essential context, though it could specify format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity).

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: 'Set the default list for new tasks.' It specifies the verb ('Set') and resource ('default list'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'rename_list' or 'archive_list', which also modify list properties. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the list must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'get_lists' for listing available lists. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement, with no explicit context or alternatives provided.

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