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 of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Get habit completion history' without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 three words ('Get habit completion history'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. This is an example of efficient communication where every word earns its place.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool usage. While the purpose is clear, it lacks crucial behavioral context (e.g., read-only vs. mutation, authentication needs) and doesn't describe what the tool returns. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output information, the description should provide more context about the operation and expected results.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('habit_id' and 'days_back'). The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'completion history' entails or how the data is structured). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 habit completion history' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('habit completion history'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'ticktick_get_habit_calendar', 'ticktick_get_habit_stats', or 'ticktick_get_habit_streaks', which all appear to retrieve habit-related data. The description is adequate but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 multiple sibling tools that retrieve habit data (e.g., 'ticktick_get_habit_calendar', 'ticktick_get_habit_stats'), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred. The description simply states what it does without any contextual usage information.

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