TickTick MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Export' but does not reveal if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, involves rate limits, or what the output entails (e.g., file download, data stream). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that likely accesses user data.

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 phrase with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is overly terse, bordering on under-specified, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the conciseness.

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 data export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the export produces (e.g., file format, data structure), any side effects, or usage constraints, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all parameters (habit_id, start_date, end_date, format) with details like defaults and formats. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 'Export habit tracking data' clearly states the action (export) and resource (habit tracking data), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'export' entails (e.g., file generation, data retrieval) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_export_analytics_data' or 'ticktick_export_project', making it vague in context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for selection. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for bulk data extraction or specific reporting needs.

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