Retrieve the signed-in TickTick user's profile: web mode returns ID, inbox ID, plan, and registration info; API-token mode returns the account time-zone preference.
Gets the signed-in user's profile. In web mode returns id, inbox id, plan and registration info; in API-token mode returns the account time zone preference.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the returned fields differ by auth mode (web vs API-token), which is a genuine, non-obvious trait. However, it omits whether the call is read-only, what happens on unauthenticated/failed calls, and any permission requirements.
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 tightly-scoped sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the mode-dependent detail following. No filler or repetition.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does so for both auth modes (id, inbox id, plan, registration info; time zone preference). It is nearly complete for a no-arg read tool, with only the read-only nature left implicit.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter information is needed or missing.
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 and resource ("Gets the signed-in user's profile") that is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like get_preferences or get_task. An agent immediately knows this retrieves the authenticated user's own identity data.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and first sentence, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., get_preferences, which is the nearest sibling and could be confused with user profile). The web-vs-API-token framing hints at context but does not instruct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.