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 a new task' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the task is saved immediately, if there are rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., duplicate titles). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create a new task'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly stating the tool's function.

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 complexity of a task creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks context on behavioral aspects (e.g., error handling, permissions), doesn't explain return values or success indicators, and offers no guidance on parameter interactions. For a mutation tool, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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%, with each parameter well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'title' as task title, 'priority' with numeric mapping). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'project_id' affects task placement) or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles most of the documentation.

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 a new task in TickTick' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('task in TickTick'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_create_task_from_template' or 'ticktick_create_task_template', which also involve task creation but with different approaches or resources.

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 siblings like 'ticktick_create_task_from_template' and 'ticktick_create_task_template', it's unclear if this is for basic task creation or if there are specific contexts (e.g., from scratch vs. using templates) that should dictate choice. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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