Things App MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the implementation uses AppleScript and is macOS-only, which are important behavioral constraints not covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on error handling, response format, or other operational traits.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and key constraints (AppleScript, macOS-only). Every word serves a clear purpose, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (single parameter, read-only) and lack of output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and platform constraints adequately. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., project details) or potential limitations, leaving some gaps in context for effective use by an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter fully documented. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as ID format or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a specific project by its ID'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-projects' or 'get-todo-by-id', which would require mentioning it retrieves a single project rather than a list or other entity types.

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 when you need a specific project by ID, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-projects' for listing or 'search' for broader queries. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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