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. 'List' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes metadata (e.g., template descriptions), or has rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves key behavioral aspects unclear.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List') and resource ('available project templates'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for such a simple tool.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on usage scenarios, behavioral traits (e.g., authentication needs, return format), and how it fits among sibling template/project tools. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to use it effectively without additional assumptions.

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 description mentions no parameters, while the input schema has one optional parameter ('category') with 100% description coverage ('Filter by template category'). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3. The description adds no value beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to compensate for gaps either.

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 'List available project templates' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('available project templates'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ticktick_create_project_from_template' (creation vs. listing) and 'ticktick_get_task_templates' (project vs. task templates), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing project access), typical use cases (e.g., before creating a project), or when not to use it (e.g., if you already know the template ID). With many sibling tools for templates and projects, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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