Todoist MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create a new task' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the task is immediately visible, error conditions, or what happens with conflicting due date formats. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, efficiently lists key optional fields. No wasted words or redundant information. Every part of the description earns its place.

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 mutation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., task ID, success status), error handling, or behavioral constraints. The schema covers parameter details, but the description lacks critical operational context.

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 all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing a subset of optional fields (due date, priority, labels, project) but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. 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 ('Create') and resource ('new task'), and lists optional fields (due date, priority, labels, project). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_task' or 'complete_task' by focusing on creation, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'quick_add' which might be a simpler alternative.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'quick_add' (which appears to be a sibling tool) or 'create_task' with minimal vs. full parameter sets. The description mentions optional fields but doesn't provide context on when to include them or prerequisites for use.

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