Retrieves habit sections (groups) from TickTick so you can see how habits are organized. Use it to get section names before filtering or managing habits.
Lists habit sections (groups). Works in both modes.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Works in both modes" hints at a behavioral property but never defines the modes, so it adds ambiguity rather than disclosure. Nothing about ordering, completeness, or scope is stated.
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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is terse to the point of being opaque, slightly undermining the conciseness win.
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?
For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema the description could be adequate, but it leaves the fundamental question of what a "section" is and what "both modes" refers to unanswered. The undefined mode reference is a real gap for an agent trying to decide whether to call it.
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 details are missing because none exist.
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 ("Lists habit sections") and parenthetically clarifies that sections are groups, which disambiguates the term. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling list_habits or explain the relationship between sections and habits.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus list_habits or list_project_groups, no prerequisites, and no indication of what "both modes" means. The agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.