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 the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero 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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Get detailed information about a specific task'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's basic function.

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 a task management system and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, such as fields like due dates or status, nor does it cover behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with no structured output, more descriptive context is needed to guide effective use.

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 parameter 'task_id' clearly documented as 'ID of the task'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get detailed information about a specific task', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'task', but lacks specificity on what 'detailed information' entails, making it less distinct from siblings like 'ticktick_get_task_attachments' or 'ticktick_get_task_notes' that might also retrieve task-related data. It avoids tautology but doesn't fully differentiate scope.

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, such as needing a valid task ID, or compare it to sibling tools like 'ticktick_search_tasks' or 'ticktick_get_tasks_by_tag' for broader queries. Usage is implied only by the name, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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