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. 'Restore' implies a mutation (changing project state from archived to active), but it doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's reversible (can be re-archived), side effects (e.g., tasks become visible again), or error conditions (e.g., invalid project_id). Minimal behavioral context is given beyond the basic action.

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?

Extremely concise with a single sentence 'Restore an archived project' that directly states the purpose. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (permissions, reversibility), usage context (prerequisites, alternatives), and expected outcomes (what happens after restoration). The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient.

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% (parameter 'project_id' is fully described in schema as 'ID of the project to unarchive'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Restore an archived project' clearly states the action (restore/unarchive) and the resource (project). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ticktick_archive_project' by indicating the opposite operation. However, it doesn't specify what 'restore' entails (e.g., returning to active projects list).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., project must be archived), exclusions, or related tools like 'ticktick_get_projects' to check archive status. The description implies usage only for archived projects but doesn't state this explicitly.

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