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 task assignees' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what the return format is (e.g., list of names/IDs), error conditions (e.g., invalid task ID), or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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 extremely concise ('List task assignees')—a single, front-loaded phrase with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail 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 one parameter), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, the description doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication needs, return format) or usage context. While the schema fully documents the parameter, the overall tool understanding remains shallow, making it inadequate for reliable agent invocation without additional inference.

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 (the 'task_id' parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the format of the task ID, provide examples, or clarify that this tool is for a single task. This meets the minimum viable level given the schema's completeness.

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 task assignees' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('task assignees'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'ticktick_assign_task' (which assigns rather than lists) and 'ticktick_get_task_details' (which gets broader details). However, it doesn't specify that this is for a specific task (implied by the parameter), which slightly limits differentiation from other listing tools.

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 a valid task ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'ticktick_get_task_details' (which might include assignee info) or 'ticktick_filter_tasks' (which could filter by assignee). Usage is implied by the parameter but not explicitly stated.

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