ticktick-mcp

list_projects

Fetch all TickTick/Dida365 projects and lists for the signed-in user in cookie or API-token mode. Use it to see available projects before creating or organizing tasks.

Instructions

Lists all projects (lists) for the signed-in user. Works in both cookie and API-token mode.

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_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add two real facts: results are scoped to the signed-in user, and the tool works in both cookie and API-token auth modes. It says nothing about result shape, ordering, or pagination for large project lists, so meaningful gaps remain.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste, and the core action plus scope is front-loaded ahead of the secondary auth-mode note. Nothing is repeated from the schema since there is no schema content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers who the results belong to and the auth modes that work. It could still mention ordering or result shape, but the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 cannot carry or obscure any parameter meaning; there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The baseline for a 0-param tool applies.

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 all projects") and usefully disambiguates the domain term by equating projects with "lists", which distinguishes it from list_project_groups and the single-project get_project. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the enumeration call for the current user, and "for the signed-in user" scopes it. There is no statement of when to prefer it over get_project_with_data or list_project_groups, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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