ticktick-mcp

list_completed_tasks

List completed tasks within a date range, for one project or across all projects. Use start and end timestamps to retrieve task history.

Instructions

Lists completed tasks within a date range, for one project or across all projects.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_completed_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	End, "yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss"
`from`	No	Start, "yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss" (e.g. "2026-01-01 00:00:00")
`limit`	No	Max results (default 100)
`projectId`	No	Project id, or "inbox" (ignored when allProjects=true)
`allProjects`	No	Across all projects (default false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 completion filter and project scoping, but says nothing about ordering, default result limits, pagination, or timezone handling for the date range.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope are stated immediately and nothing is wasted.

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?

For a five-parameter read-only list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core scope but omits result-shaping behavior (limit interaction, ordering, date-range semantics) that an agent may need to call it correctly.

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 all five parameters including formats, defaults, and the inbox sentinel. The description's 'one project or across all projects' merely restates the projectId/allProjects relationship, adding no syntax or edge-case detail 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+resource ('Lists completed tasks') with scope qualifiers (date range, one project or all). The 'completed' filter implicitly distinguishes it from list_tasks, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The scope (date range, project vs all projects) implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing statement versus list_tasks/search_tasks. Guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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