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 states it's a 'get' operation (implying read-only) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, whether it returns structured data or a report, error conditions, or if it requires specific user permissions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

Extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the summary contains (e.g., metrics, format), how it's generated, or any dependencies. For a tool that likely returns analytics data, more context is needed for effective use.

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 the single parameter 'date' fully documented in the schema (type, format, default). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for 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 'Get daily focus time summary' states the basic action (get) and resource (daily focus time summary), but it's vague about what exactly constitutes a 'focus time summary' - is it total minutes, breakdown by task, comparison to goals? It distinguishes from most siblings (which are about tasks, projects, habits, etc.) but not clearly from 'ticktick_get_focus_stats' or 'ticktick_get_focus_history' which might overlap.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ticktick_get_focus_stats' or 'ticktick_get_focus_history'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., requires focus tracking enabled), 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.