TickTick MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a non-idempotent write operation that doesn't destroy data. The description adds the API version requirement, which is useful behavioral context not covered by annotations, but doesn't mention other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate creation attempts.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that both earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides important API requirement context. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded.

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 creation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema mentioned in context signals (though input schema shows one exists), and annotations covering only basic hints, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, relationships between parent_task_id and project_id, expected return values, or error conditions. The API version note helps but doesn't compensate for major gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (the schema has descriptions but context signals indicate 0% coverage), the description carries full burden for parameter documentation. It mentions only that this creates a subtask 'under a parent task,' which hints at the parent_task_id parameter but doesn't explain any of the 6 parameters (parent_task_id, project_id, title, content, due_date, priority) or their relationships. This is inadequate compensation for the schema coverage gap.

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 action ('Create a subtask') and the target ('under a parent task'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_create_task' beyond the parent-child relationship implication.

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 some context with the note about requiring v2 API for full hierarchy support, which implies when this tool should work. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'ticktick_create_task' or mention prerequisites beyond the API version.

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