ticktick-mcp

list_habits

Retrieve habits from TickTick or Dida365 to track recurring routines and monitor progress. Works in both modes for consistent habit oversight.

Instructions

Lists habits. Works in both modes.

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_habits"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

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 disclosure burden, and it delivers almost nothing: it omits whether results are paginated, scoped to a user, ordered, or what "both modes" means. The single behavioral hint is unexplained, leaving an agent to discover behavior at runtime.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is short and front-loads the actual operation, which is good. However, the second fragment "Works in both modes" is cryptic filler rather than an earned sentence, so the brevity comes at the cost of meaning.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of information, yet it says nothing about what a returned habit contains or what the two modes imply. For such a simple tool the bar is low, but this still falls short.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema-coverage baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it does not misrepresent the empty parameter set.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Lists habits" gives a clear verb+resource, but the follow-up "Works in both modes" is undefined and does nothing to distinguish this from other list_* siblings. An agent can guess the operation, but not what makes it distinct from list_habit_sections or query_habit_checkins.

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 when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting this over siblings like list_habit_sections, and no prerequisites stated. The phrase "both modes" gestures at context but never explains what the modes are or when each applies.

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