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. 'Edit task note' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether edits are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic intent.

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 extremely concise with 'Edit task note', a single phrase that front-loads the core purpose without waste. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick understanding, though it may lack depth.

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 complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it correctly beyond basic parameter mapping.

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 clear descriptions for 'task_id', 'note_id', and 'new_content'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Edit task note' states the action (edit) and resource (task note), which is clear but minimal. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'ticktick_add_task_note' and 'ticktick_delete_task_note' by specifying editing rather than adding or deleting, but it lacks specificity about what editing entails (e.g., content replacement). This is vague compared to more detailed descriptions.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing note), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'ticktick_update_task' for other task modifications. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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