TickTick MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create calendar event' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, whether the event is immediately published, what happens on conflicts, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 three words, which is appropriate for a simple tool. However, it's arguably too brief given the lack of other context. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, but could benefit from additional context given the complexity of the tool ecosystem.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a rich ecosystem of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what distinguishes calendar events from tasks, doesn't provide behavioral context for the creation operation, and doesn't guide usage relative to alternatives. The agent would need to infer too much from the minimal description.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Create calendar event' states the basic action (create) and resource (calendar event), but it's vague about what specifically distinguishes this from other creation tools like 'ticktick_create_task' or 'ticktick_convert_task_to_event'. It doesn't specify that this creates events in the calendar rather than tasks, which is a key distinction given the sibling tools.

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. With many sibling tools for creating tasks, habits, and projects, there's no indication that this is specifically for calendar events rather than other types of items. No prerequisites, exclusions, or complementary tools are mentioned.

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