dida365_create_projectCreates a Dida365/TickTick project with a name and optional type, view mode, color, and sort order, so agents can organize tasks or notes in lists, kanban boards, or timelines.
Create a project. view_mode: list|kanban|timeline. kind: TASK|NOTE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| color | No | ||
| view_mode | No | ||
| sort_order | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no note on what happens on duplicate names, no permission/scope requirements, no confirmation that creation persists.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the parameter hints. Nothing is wasted, though the parameter hints read as a terse dump rather than integrated guidance.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and only two optional params touched, the definition is thin for a mutation tool — though the required 'name' is obvious enough that the gap is not fatal.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully enumerates the allowed values for view_mode (list|kanban|timeline) and kind (TASK|NOTE), but leaves color and sort_order entirely unexplained. Partial compensation only.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Create a project'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like dida365_update_project or dida365_create_task beyond the name itself, so an agent must infer routing from the tool name.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., project-specific vs user-specific creation), and no mention of alternatives such as dida365_create_task. The agent gets no routing help at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.