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. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format might be (e.g., list of events, structured data). The description is minimal and adds little beyond the name.

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 four words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it's arguably too brief, bordering on under-specified, but it doesn't waste words. It could benefit from more detail 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 the complexity (a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any behavioral context. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall tool purpose and usage are inadequately described for effective agent invocation.

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 all parameters (start_date, end_date, view_type, include_tasks). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the interaction between parameters or typical use cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Calendar view for date range' states the general purpose but is vague. It mentions the resource ('calendar view') and scope ('date range'), but lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'get', 'retrieve', 'fetch') and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'ticktick_get_calendar_events', which might serve a similar purpose. It's not tautological but insufficiently specific.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'ticktick_get_calendar_events' or 'ticktick_filter_tasks'. Usage is implied by the name and parameters, but no explicit context is given.

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