Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ticktick-mcp

ticktick-mcp

by powercess
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_project_with_data

Retrieve a project and its tasks and columns by project ID to inspect project structure and task details in one request.

Instructions

Gets a project with its tasks and columns.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "get_project_with_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYesProject id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the payload contents (tasks and columns), but says nothing about authentication, behavior when the projectId is invalid, how deep the expansion goes, or whether tasks/columns are full objects or summaries.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter getter, though it is terse enough to feel under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With a single required parameter and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient, and it usefully hints at the return shape (project plus tasks and columns). It is still missing any failure/edge behavior for an expansion-style read, leaving a modest gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents projectId. The description adds no format, source, or constraint detail for it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Gets a project') and adds the payload scope ('with its tasks and columns'), which distinguishes it from the bare get_project sibling by implication. It never names get_project, list_tasks, or list_columns explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description does not say to prefer this over calling get_project plus list_tasks plus list_columns, nor when a lightweight get_project would suffice. The agent must infer the use case 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools