ticktick-mcp

get_task

Fetch a single TickTick/Dida365 task by task ID and project ID to read its details.

Instructions

Gets a single task by id.

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": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>",
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "get_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`taskId`	Yes	Task id
`projectId`	Yes	Project id, or "inbox"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 30, 2026

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 must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Gets' implies a read operation but does not mention permissions, error behavior for missing tasks, or the special 'inbox' project value.

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?

The single sentence is brief and front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately compact for a simple getter, though the wording is so terse that it slightly underspecifies the required identifiers.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a simple retrieval tool, the description still omits that projectId is required and does not explain error behavior when a task is not found. With no annotations and no output schema, more context is needed to call it correctly in edge cases.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both taskId and projectId. The description only says 'by id' and does not clarify the required projectId or the 'inbox' option, adding little beyond the schema.

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 single task'), distinguishing it from list_tasks and search_tasks. However, 'by id' only accounts for taskId even though projectId is also required, so the scope is slightly imprecise.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tasks, search_tasks, or get_project. It also omits prerequisites such as whether a project context is required.

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