Public leaderboard

Public assessment

jimfilippou/things-mcp (things-mcp)

things-mcp · v1.0.0 · scanned

What changed in the harness

Selection accuracy 100→100, token cost up 14%, unconfirmed writes 0%→0%.

Category breakdown

Where the score comes from.

Earned points across the four signals Gradable measures. Safety and Legibility are scored out of 30; Economics and Discoverability are scored out of 20.

01Safety

0.0 / 30

0.0 out of 30
02Legibility

28.5 / 30

28.5 out of 30
03Economics

20.0 / 20

20.0 out of 20
04Discoverability

15.6 / 20

15.6 out of 20

Highest-impact fix

Estimated gain +30 points

Add explicit identity and permission preflight tools

Expose machine-readable principal/tenant confirmation and a non-mutating permission check so agents can verify both before destructive actions.

Description evidence

Defects and rewrites.

4 defects found across the exposed tool descriptions. Suggested rewrites make purpose, inputs, boundaries, and returns easier for an agent to understand.

Tool Defect types Suggested rewrite
add-todo
no_return_description
Create a new todo in Things with the given title, notes, schedule (when), deadline date, tags, and project/area (list). Returns the created todo; if reveal is true, shows it in the UI.
add-project
params_unexplained no_return_description
Create a new Things project with the given title, notes, schedule (when), deadline, tags, area (the Things area the project belongs to), and initial todo titles. Returns the created project; if reveal is true, shows it in the UI.
show-list
no_return_description
Display a built-in Things list (inbox, today, anytime, upcoming, someday, logbook, tomorrow, deadlines, repeating, all-projects, or logged-projects) and return its items, optionally filtered by tag names.
search
no_return_description
Search Things for todos and projects matching the given query text and returns the matching items.

Selection evidence

Confusable tool pairs.

1 pair where similar names or overlapping descriptions may send an agent toward the wrong tool.

Tool A Tool B Confidence Why they collide
add-todo add-project medium Both tools share the 'add' prefix and have near-identical input schemas (title/notes/when/deadline/tags/reveal) with empty descriptions. A vague task like 'add a new item titled X with a deadline and tags' provides no term like 'todo' or 'project' to disambiguate, so an agent could pick the wrong member; only the minor field differences (list/completed vs area/todos) reveal the intended tool.

Compare the field

One score is useful.
The evidence makes it actionable.

Back to the leaderboard