Todoist 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. 'Create a new label' implies a write operation, but it doesn't disclose permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., returns label ID). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create a new label'), making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 is a mutation (create) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or response format, and while the schema handles parameters, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies system 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 fully documents all parameters (name, color, isFavorite) with descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a label is created. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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 'Create a new label' clearly states the verb ('create') and resource ('label'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_label' or 'update_label' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't specify what kind of label (e.g., task label, project label) or system context, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project first), when not to use it (e.g., for existing labels), or direct alternatives like 'update_label' for modifications. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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