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 disclosing the implementation method ('Uses AppleScript') and platform constraint ('macOS only'), which aren't covered by annotations. It doesn't describe behavioral traits like pagination or error handling, but with annotations covering safety, this extra context is helpful, though not exhaustive.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (a search function with one parameter), annotations cover safety, and schema fully documents the input. The description adds platform and implementation details, but lacks output information (no output schema) and doesn't fully address sibling differentiation. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps in contextual guidance.

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%, with the 'query' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'by title or notes content,' which adds semantic context about what the query matches, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Search for to-dos by title or notes content.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('to-dos'), and searchable fields ('title or notes content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'get-todos', which might offer similar functionality, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 some usage context with 'Uses AppleScript (macOS only),' indicating platform restrictions. It implies usage for searching to-dos, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search' or 'get-todos' from the sibling list, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the macOS requirement.

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