Todoist MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but provides no information about permissions required, rate limits, response format, whether data is real-time or cached, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is inadequate for a tool that presumably accesses user data.

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 at just 6 words, front-loading the essential purpose without any unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in communicating the core function.

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 of productivity statistics (which could include metrics, trends, comparisons) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't indicate what specific statistics are returned, in what format, or what insights are provided, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage and only one parameter with clear enum values and default, the schema does all the work. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but unenhanced parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('task completion statistics and productivity insights'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_task' or 'list_tasks' that might provide related but different data, preventing 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. With multiple sibling tools like 'get_task', 'list_tasks', and various task management tools, there's no indication of when productivity statistics are appropriate versus individual task data or lists.

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