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 mentions that empty string clears recurrence, which is useful, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether this is a destructive operation, error conditions, or how it interacts with other task properties. For a mutation tool, this is inadequate.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return value sections. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter explanations could be more structured. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It has an output schema (returns updated task details), so return values are covered, but the mutation nature and parameter relationships need more explanation. For a tool with multiple identifier parameters, this leaves ambiguity.

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 provides examples for 'repeat' parameter and clarifies that empty string clears recurrence, adding valuable semantics. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between task_name, task_id, taskseries_id, and list_id parameters or when to use which, leaving significant gaps.

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 'set' and resource 'task recurrence pattern', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like set_task_due_date or set_task_priority by focusing on recurrence patterns. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a task first), when to use task_name vs task_id, or how it relates to other task-setting tools like set_task_due_date. This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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