TickTick MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about API version requirements ('Requires v2 API for complete data'), which is useful behavioral information not in annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, keeping the score moderate.

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 concise with three short sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second details content, and the third specifies a requirement. There's no wasted text, though minor improvements in structure (e.g., bullet points) could enhance readability.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, content, and a key requirement, though it could benefit from more explicit usage guidelines to reach a perfect score.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description doesn't mention the 'week_offset' parameter at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description adds no parameter semantics, so it's penalized to 3 for not providing any value beyond the schema.

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 ('Get') and resource ('weekly productivity report') with specific content details ('daily breakdown, totals, and trends'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_get_daily_summary' or 'ticktick_get_productivity_score', 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 includes an implicit usage guideline ('Requires v2 API for complete data'), which suggests a prerequisite for optimal use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. 'ticktick_get_daily_summary' for daily data or 'ticktick_get_productivity_score' for scores), leaving some ambiguity.

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