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 recurring tasks' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes metadata like task details, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with just two words, front-loading the core action and resource. There's no wasted language, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 (a read operation with filtering parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation, 'List recurring tasks' is insufficient to guide an agent effectively.

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%, with all three parameters (project_id, frequency_filter, status) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'List recurring tasks', which implies filtering but doesn't explain parameter usage or interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 recurring tasks' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('recurring tasks'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_filter_tasks' or 'ticktick_search_tasks' that also retrieve tasks, nor does it specify scope beyond 'recurring' (e.g., all vs filtered). This makes it vague compared to a more specific description.

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 siblings like 'ticktick_filter_tasks', 'ticktick_search_tasks', and 'ticktick_get_tasks_by_tag', there's no indication that this tool is specifically for recurring tasks or how it differs from general task retrieval tools. No context or exclusions are mentioned.

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