TickTick MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Team productivity metrics' suggests read-only data retrieval, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or what specific metrics are returned. It doesn't mention whether this aggregates data across collaborators or requires specific permissions.

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 at just two words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core concept, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by conveying the tool's general domain.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. 'Team productivity metrics' doesn't explain what data is returned, in what format, or what 'collaboration' specifically entails. Given the complexity implied by the name and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and output.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'collaboration stats' encompass or how the time period affects the metrics. 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 'Team productivity metrics' is vague - it states the general domain but doesn't specify what action the tool performs (retrieves? calculates? analyzes?) or what resource it operates on. While it hints at collaboration stats, it doesn't clearly distinguish this from similar sibling tools like 'ticktick_get_team_activity' or 'ticktick_get_productivity_report'.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools that also provide team/productivity data. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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