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 states 'Get project analytics and statistics' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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 four words ('Get project analytics and statistics'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 analytics tools and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what specific statistics are returned, the format of the analytics data, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to help the agent understand what to expect.

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 the single parameter 'project_id' clearly documented as 'ID of the project'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 project analytics and statistics' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('project analytics and statistics'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_get_productivity_insights' or 'ticktick_get_completion_trends' which also appear to provide analytical data, leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this tool.

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 offering analytics (e.g., 'ticktick_get_productivity_insights', 'ticktick_get_completion_trends'), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over others, leaving the agent to guess based on names alone.

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