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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Get historical focus session data' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, data format, pagination, or what constitutes a 'focus session.' This leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented for a tool that presumably accesses historical user data.

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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 accessing historical user data with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., session duration, timestamps, completion status), how results are structured, or any limitations. Given the complexity of focus session data and lack of structured documentation, more context is needed.

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 both parameters ('days_back' and 'task_id') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 historical focus session data' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('historical focus session data'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_get_focus_stats' or 'ticktick_get_daily_focus_summary' which might provide related but different focus data.

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. With many sibling tools related to focus (e.g., 'ticktick_get_focus_stats', 'ticktick_get_daily_focus_summary'), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over those options.

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