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. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the tasks are returned in, if there are rate limits, or if it includes completed tasks. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't provide enough context about behavioral aspects like authentication needs, return format, or error handling, which are important for a retrieval tool.

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 the single parameter 'include_overdue' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating 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 'Get tasks scheduled for today' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('tasks scheduled for today'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'ticktick_get_overdue_tasks' or 'ticktick_get_upcoming_tasks', which would require mentioning the specific time scope of 'today' as the distinguishing factor.

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. With many sibling tools for task retrieval (e.g., 'ticktick_get_overdue_tasks', 'ticktick_get_upcoming_tasks', 'ticktick_filter_tasks'), there's no indication of when 'today' is the appropriate filter versus other time-based or filtered queries.

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