Skip to main content
Glama

ticktick_get_unprocessed_completions

Fetch unprocessed completed tasks for a project so you can review new completions and mark them as handled.

Instructions

Returns completed tasks for a project that have NOT yet been marked as processed by a domain agent.

Could be called at the beginning of each conversation to check for new completions. After reviewing each returned task, call ticktick_mark_completion_processed to record that it has been handled.

A task completed through ticktick_complete_task is recorded by that tool, so what this returns is what was completed elsewhere, in the TickTick app or on another client, where a note may be waiting to be read. One exception: no recurring completion is recorded, because it files its completed instance under an id the completing call never sees, so that instance appears here whoever completed it.

Args: project_id (str): TickTick project ID or name to check. Required. Accepts the project's name as well as its ID (case-insensitive, trimmed; "Inbox" resolves to the inbox). Two projects sharing a name is an error, not a guess. days (int): How many days back to look for completions. Default 30.

Returns: JSON list of unprocessed task objects (may be empty). Each object includes: id, title, projectId, completedTime, content. Error: {"error": "...", "status": "error"}

Usage Guide: - Call once per project at the start of each conversation. - For each returned task: read the content field, log meaningful outcomes if appropriate, then call ticktick_mark_completion_processed. - Example: ticktick_get_unprocessed_completions( project_id="your_project_id_here", days=30 )

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNo
project_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers. It clearly explains the unprocessed state, the downstream marking step, why tasks completed via ticktick_complete_task are excluded, and subtle recurring-completion behavior. These details go well beyond a simple 'returns tasks' statement and give the agent an accurate mental model of side effects and data provenance.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is organized into clear sections (description, args, returns, usage guide) and every sentence adds value. The key semantics are front-loaded, the parameter meanings are thorough, and the usage guide is practical without being padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the two-parameter schema, zero annotation coverage, and output schema presence, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers the return shape, error format, parameter semantics, workflow context, and edge cases such as duplicate project names and recurring completions. An agent can confidently select and call this tool based on the description alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully, and it does. project_id is documented as required and accepts an ID or a case-insensitive, trimmed name with 'Inbox' resolution and an explicit duplicate-name error. days is given a precise meaning ('How many days back to look for completions') and its default of 30 is stated. The included example further clarifies invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a precise, specific statement: 'Returns completed tasks for a project that have NOT yet been marked as processed by a domain agent.' It clearly identifies the resource (completed tasks), the condition (unprocessed), and the scope (per project). It also distinguishes itself from related tools like ticktick_complete_task and ticktick_mark_completion_processed by explaining what it does and does not include.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to call it ('at the beginning of each conversation'), how often ('Call once per project'), and what to do after each invocation ('call ticktick_mark_completion_processed'). It also gives an explicit exclusion: tasks completed through ticktick_complete_task are already recorded, so this tool targets completions from outside the MCP workflow. This is strong, actionable routing guidance.

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