Things App MCP

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, exploratory operation. The description adds valuable context by specifying it's for navigation ('Navigate to and show') and listing built-in list IDs, which helps the agent understand the tool's scope beyond just being read-only. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose and resources, the second lists built-in IDs. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, resources, and built-in IDs, but could benefit from more explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings or details on what 'show' entails (e.g., UI navigation vs. data return).

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds some value by listing built-in list IDs and clarifying the relationship between 'id' and 'query' parameters, but doesn't provide significant additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers.

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 verb ('Navigate to and show') and the specific resources ('list, project, area, tag, or to-do'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search' or 'get-todos' by focusing on navigation/display rather than data retrieval or search operations.

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 clear context by listing built-in list IDs and implying usage for navigation purposes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-todos' or 'search', which might retrieve similar data without the navigation aspect.

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