db4app Todo MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions filtering capabilities, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), pagination behavior, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool with 6 parameters including authentication-related ones, 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 sized with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and basic usage. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the second sentence could be slightly more structured to separate usage context from filtering options.

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 tool with 6 parameters including authentication-related ones and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the authentication parameters (postgresUrl, connectionId, authToken) at all, nor does it describe what the tool returns. Given the complexity and lack of annotations/output schema, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

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 mentions filtering by 'completion status, category, or priority' which maps to the first three parameters. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation 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 verb ('List') and resource ('todos'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_todo' or 'remove_todo' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping list functions that might exist in other contexts.

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 see their todos') and mentions optional filters. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficient for basic decision-making.

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