TickTick MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List task templates' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or what the output looks like (e.g., list of objects with fields). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by defining the tool's basic purpose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that returns data. It doesn't explain what 'listing' entails (e.g., format, fields, pagination), which is critical for an agent to use it effectively. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but output behavior remains undocumented.

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 well-documented in the schema itself (category filtering, shared inclusion, sort options). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 templates' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('task templates'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about scope or format, and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_get_project_templates' or 'ticktick_bulk_create_from_template' that might involve templates in different ways.

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, context for filtering templates, or distinguish it from related tools such as 'ticktick_create_task_from_template' or 'ticktick_update_task_template'. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and parameters.

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