RTM MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't cover critical aspects: whether it's a mutation (implied by 'Unarchive'), what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or rate limits. The return statement hints at output but lacks detail on format or errors.

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 and structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to scan. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Updated list details'), and the overall content is minimal—it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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 one parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (which should document return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the parameter but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling). For a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more guidance on usage and outcomes.

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 explicitly documents the single parameter 'list_name' with a brief explanation ('Name of the list to unarchive'), adding essential meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., case-sensitivity, existence checks).

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 action ('Unarchive') and resource ('a list'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'archive_list' beyond the obvious opposite action, nor does it specify what 'unarchive' entails (e.g., restoring visibility, re-enabling tasks). The purpose is understandable but lacks depth.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the list must be archived first), conditions for use, or how it relates to siblings like 'archive_list' or 'get_lists'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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