TickTick MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Export project data' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, what the output looks like (e.g., file download, structured data), rate limits, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, 'Export project data', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it efficient though under-specified.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, failing to explain what 'project data' entails, the output format, or usage context. It's inadequate for guiding an agent effectively.

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 the schema fully documents the three parameters (project_id, format, include_completed). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the scope of 'project data' or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 project data' states a basic purpose but is vague. It specifies the verb 'export' and resource 'project data', but doesn't clarify what 'project data' includes (tasks, metadata, structure) or how it differs from other export tools like 'ticktick_export_analytics_data' or 'ticktick_export_habit_data'. It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity.

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. With sibling tools like 'ticktick_export_analytics_data' and 'ticktick_export_habit_data', the description doesn't indicate this is for general project data export, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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