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 project' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't describe what happens upon creation (e.g., default settings, success response), potential side effects (e.g., impact on existing projects), or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication requirements). This leaves significant gaps 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 and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's purpose.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 5 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns upon success/failure, how it interacts with sibling tools (e.g., 'list_projects' or 'update_project'), or any behavioral nuances. For a creation tool in a project management context, more context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 5 parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'name' as required, 'color' with examples, 'viewStyle' with enum values). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_label', 'create_section', or 'create_task', which all follow the same 'create [resource]' pattern without specifying what distinguishes a project from these other entities.

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., permissions needed), when to choose this over similar creation tools (like 'create_task'), or any constraints (e.g., project limits). The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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