Todoist MCP Server

reschedule-tasks

Destructive

Reschedule tasks to new dates while preserving recurring schedules. Move recurring tasks without modifying their repeat pattern.

Instructions

Reschedule tasks to new dates while preserving recurring schedules. Unlike update-tasks (which replaces the entire due string and can wipe recurrence), this tool changes only the date, keeping recurrence patterns intact. Use this when moving recurring tasks to a different date without altering their repeat pattern.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tasks`	Yes	The tasks to reschedule with their new dates.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tasks`	Yes	The rescheduled tasks.
`totalCount`	Yes	The total number of tasks rescheduled.
`rescheduledTaskIds`	Yes	The IDs of the rescheduled tasks.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv13.3.1Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it changes only the date, preserves recurrence patterns, and does not replace the entire due string. This goes beyond what annotations convey, though it does not discuss response details or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each earning its place: main action, contrast with the sibling tool, and explicit usage direction. Front-loaded and free of filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, when to use it, the alternative to avoid, and the key behavioral guarantee of preserving recurrence. This is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the input schema already documents the tasks array, id, and date format including time preservation behavior. The description contributes the recurrence-preservation nuance but does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Reschedule tasks to new dates while preserving recurring schedules.' It directly distinguishes itself from update-tasks, making the tool's scope unmistakable even without inspecting the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when moving recurring tasks to a different date without altering their repeat pattern.' It also names the alternative (update-tasks) and explains why that alternative can be harmful (wipes recurrence), leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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