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. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of tasks with details). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 task retrieval in a system with many sibling tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or how it integrates with other tools, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand full context.

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 both parameters ('days_ahead' and 'limit') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying date-based filtering, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('upcoming tasks'), specifying the scope ('within specified days'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ticktick_get_today_tasks' by focusing on a future time window, though it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from other task-retrieval tools like 'ticktick_filter_tasks' or 'ticktick_search_tasks'.

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_today_tasks', 'ticktick_get_overdue_tasks', 'ticktick_filter_tasks'), it lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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