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. It mentions 'cached' tasks and optional filtering, but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits: what 'cached' means (e.g., freshness, sync status), whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or what the output looks like. The description is too vague for a tool that likely involves data retrieval.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'cached' entails, the format or scope of returned tasks, or any limitations. For a data retrieval tool with potential complexity around caching, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying project filtering, but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how 'include_stale' relates to 'cached') or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Get all cached tasks') and resource ('cached tasks'), with an optional filter ('by project'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ticktick_get_tasks_by_tag' or 'ticktick_filter_tasks' by specifying 'cached' tasks, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'ticktick_get_task_details' or 'ticktick_search_tasks' in terms of scope or freshness.

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 minimal guidance: it mentions optional filtering by project, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ticktick_filter_tasks', 'ticktick_search_tasks', or 'ticktick_get_task_details'. No context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions is given.

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