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. It states 'List shared projects', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 phrase ('List shared projects') with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 listing shared projects (which may involve permissions or filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or any contextual nuances, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 both parameters (include_owned and include_received) with their purposes and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 shared projects' clearly states the action (list) and resource (shared projects), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'ticktick_get_projects' which likely lists all projects, making the distinction between 'shared' and general projects unclear without further context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ticktick_get_projects'. The description implies it's for shared projects, but it doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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