Create a Todoist task from text and set its priority, project, and natural-language due date to add work items to your workflow.
Create a Todoist task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | The task text | |
| priority | No | Priority 1 (normal) to 4 (urgent) | |
| api_token | Yes | Todoist API token | |
| due_string | No | Natural-language due date (e.g. 'tomorrow 5pm') | |
| project_id | No | Project id to add the task to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing beyond 'create'. It does not disclose whether the task is immediately persisted, what happens with duplicate content, what permissions the api_token needs, or what the call returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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?
A single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum say what is returned or confirm persistence and auth expectations. None of that is present, leaving the agent reliant entirely on the parameter schema.
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 all five parameters (content, priority, api_token, due_string, project_id) are already documented with examples in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (Create) and resource (Todoist task), which is unambiguous about the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from adjacent tools such as create_todo, create_asana_task, or the other todoist_* siblings, so the agent must infer boundaries from names alone.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like create_todo or create_asana_task, nor any prerequisites such as needing a valid api_token or project context. The description merely names the operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.