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 states this is a list operation but doesn't describe what 'List all projects' entails—whether it returns a simple array, includes pagination, sorts projects, or shows metadata like project IDs and colors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List all projects') and specifies the scope ('in the Todoist account'). Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, making it highly efficient.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a read-only list tool, it meets the bare minimum but doesn't provide enough information for confident use without additional context or trial.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, which is appropriate. It implies no filtering or options are available, which aligns with the empty input schema. A baseline of 4 is given for zero-parameter tools when the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

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 ('List') and resource ('all projects in the Todoist account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_project' or 'delete_project' by indicating it's a read operation. However, it doesn't specify whether this includes archived projects or only active ones, 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 whether this is the primary way to retrieve projects, if there are filtering options elsewhere, or if other tools like 'list_tasks' might be more appropriate for different use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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