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. It mentions 'advanced search' but doesn't clarify what that entails—such as search scope (e.g., across all tasks or specific projects), performance characteristics, or any limitations. For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'advanced' means, what the search returns, or how results are structured. For a tool with no structured output information, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('query' and 'limit'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as query syntax examples or result ordering. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Advanced search for tasks with text query' clearly states the verb ('search') and resource ('tasks'), but it's vague about what makes it 'advanced' compared to other search tools. It doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'ticktick_filter_tasks' or 'ticktick_get_tasks_by_tag', leaving the agent uncertain about when to choose this specific search method.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for task retrieval (e.g., 'ticktick_filter_tasks', 'ticktick_get_tasks_by_tag'), the description lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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