TickTick MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states 'Team performance reports,' which does not reveal whether this tool performs a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., generating files), or involves rate limits. This lack of transparency is critical for a tool with potential data export functionality.

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?

While the description is brief ('Team performance reports'), this brevity results in under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks front-loaded critical information (e.g., the action 'export') and does not structure details to aid understanding. A single vague phrase fails to earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name.

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 complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a file or data), behavioral aspects, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a report generation tool, this gap leaves the agent without sufficient context to use it 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters (project_id, report_type, date_range, format) with enums and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.

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 'Team performance reports' is vague and tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'ticktick_export_team_report' without specifying the action (e.g., 'generate' or 'export') or clarifying the resource scope. It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'ticktick_export_analytics_data' or 'ticktick_get_team_activity', leaving the purpose unclear.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as how it differs from other export or report-related tools in the sibling list. This absence of usage instructions makes it difficult for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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