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. 'Project activity feed' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what the output format looks like (no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it effectively.

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 phrase, 'Project activity feed', which is concise and front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary words, but it may be overly terse, potentially under-specifying the tool's scope. However, it earns its place by succinctly stating the core 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 feed tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the feed contains (e.g., team actions), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., real-time vs. historical data). This makes 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 all parameters (project_id, limit, activity_types). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the context of 'activity_types' or default behaviors. With high schema coverage, 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 'Project activity feed' indicates the tool retrieves activity data for a project, which is a clear purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'activity' entails (e.g., team actions like task changes) and does not distinguish from siblings like 'ticktick_get_collaboration_stats' or 'ticktick_get_project_stats', which might overlap in functionality.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'ticktick_get_collaboration_stats' for team insights or 'ticktick_get_project_stats' for project metrics, leaving usage ambiguous.

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