Things App MCP

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

Annotations include openWorldHint=true, indicating flexibility, but the description adds context about the 'Things URL scheme' and supports setting multiple attributes. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists key attributes in a single sentence, followed by a brief note on the URL scheme. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured for clarity with 17 parameters.

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 complexity of 17 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and supported fields. However, it lacks details on return values or error cases, which would enhance completeness for a creation tool with many options.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 17 parameters. The description lists the supported attributes (e.g., title, notes, dates) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters like 'titles' taking priority over 'title'.

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 specific action ('Create a new to-do in Things') and lists the key attributes that can be set (title, notes, dates, tags, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add-project' or 'update-todo' by focusing on to-do creation with comprehensive field support.

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 implies usage for creating to-dos with various attributes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add-json' or 'update-todo'. It mentions the 'Things URL scheme' as context but lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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