Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tick-mcp

tick-mcp

by KpihX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_user_status

Retrieve current user's TickTick account status including inbox ID, Pro subscription details, and team membership.

Instructions

Get account status — inbox ID, Pro subscription, team membership.

[Category: User & Stats]  [Auth: V2]
[Related: get_productivity_stats, full_sync]

Returns: userId, username, inboxId, pro, proStartDate, proEndDate, teamUser, etc.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_user_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. Lists return fields but does not mention that the operation is read-only, safe, or any rate limits or permissions. Basic behavioral disclosure is present but incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is short and front-loaded with the core action and key fields. Tags for category and auth are useful. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides a reasonable list of return fields. It is adequate for an agent to understand what it returns, though additional behavioral context would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info because none are needed. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there is no missing parameter context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it retrieves account status with specific fields (inbox ID, Pro subscription, team membership). Related tools are listed but not differentiated, so purpose is clear but sibling distinction is implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Category and auth hints provide context, but no explicit guidance on when to use this versus related tools like get_productivity_stats or full_sync. Usage scenario is implied but not stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools