Things App MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, exploratory operation. The description adds that it 'opens the search screen,' which suggests a UI interaction rather than a direct data return, but does not detail what this screen entails, any limitations, or how it integrates with the system. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and parameter. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema) and annotations covering safety and openness, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on what the 'search screen' is, how results are presented, or interaction with sibling tools like 'search-todos,' leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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 for the single optional parameter 'query,' documented as 'Search query text.' The description mentions 'optional search query,' adding minimal context beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Open the search screen in Things with an optional search query.' It specifies the verb ('Open') and resource ('search screen in Things'), but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling 'search-todos' tool, which appears to be a more targeted search function.

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 by mentioning it opens the search screen, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search-todos' or other querying tools. It lacks clear when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for use.

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