db4app Todo MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states this is for adding items, it doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements (implied by authToken parameter), potential side effects (e.g., database writes), error handling, or what happens on success/failure. 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?

The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage. It's front-loaded with the core action and follows with context. While slightly verbose in listing parameters, each sentence serves a clear purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (8 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects, return values, and error conditions that would be needed for robust agent operation.

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 description lists the key parameters (title, description, category, priority, due date), which adds some semantic context beyond the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly, including technical ones like postgresUrl and connectionId. The description provides minimal additional value over what's in the schema.

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 ('Add a new todo item') and resource ('to the list'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a creation tool rather than listing, marking, or removing tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'list_todos' or 'remove_todo' by name.

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 for when to use this tool ('when the user wants to create a new task or reminder'), which helps the agent understand the appropriate scenario. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., 'use list_todos for viewing instead').

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