Todoist 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. It adds valuable context about recurring task behavior that isn't in the schema, but doesn't address important aspects like whether completion is reversible, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second adds crucial behavioral context for recurring tasks. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain behavioral implications. While it covers the basic action and recurring task nuance, it doesn't address completion permanence, error conditions, or response format. The description is adequate but has clear gaps for a tool that modifies state.

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 the schema already documents the single 'taskId' parameter completely. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to since the schema provides full coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Mark as complete') and resource ('a task'), specifying the action precisely. It distinguishes from sibling 'uncomplete_task' by indicating the opposite operation, and from 'update_task' by focusing specifically on completion status rather than general updates.

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 about when to use this tool ('Mark a task as complete') and includes important behavioral guidance for recurring tasks ('completes the current occurrence'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'update_task' for partial completion scenarios.

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