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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or whether it returns real-time or cached data. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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 read operation 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 read-only tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks information about return values, authentication requirements, and behavioral context that would help an agent use it effectively. The absence of annotations increases the need for descriptive completeness.

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 both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (category filtering and disabled notifications inclusion). This meets the baseline 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current notification preferences and settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'ticktick_update_notification_settings', but the 'Get' vs 'Update' distinction is implied through contrasting verbs.

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 the sibling 'ticktick_update_notification_settings' for modifying settings, nor does it explain prerequisites like authentication requirements or context for accessing notification preferences.

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