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. It mentions 'comprehensive productivity analytics and insights', which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify data scope (e.g., user-specific vs. team-wide), authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get') and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying 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?

Given the complexity of a productivity analytics tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output structure. With no annotations and an incomplete picture of what 'insights' entail, it leaves the agent with gaps, though the schema provides good parameter coverage.

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, clearly documenting all 6 parameters with enums and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., 'start_date' and 'end_date' only apply when 'time_range' is 'custom'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'comprehensive productivity analytics and insights', which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_get_productivity_insights' or 'ticktick_get_completion_trends', which might offer similar or overlapping functionality, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 productivity and analytics (e.g., 'ticktick_get_productivity_insights', 'ticktick_get_completion_trends'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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