ticktick-mcp

list_tasks

Retrieve tasks from a TickTick project or the inbox by specifying a project ID. Optionally include completed tasks to view full project status.

Instructions

Lists the tasks in a project. Use projectId: "inbox" to target the signed-in user's inbox.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "list_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes	Project id, or "inbox"
`includeCompleted`	No	Include completed tasks (default false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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 behavioral burden. It discloses only the inbox-targeting trick and says nothing about ordering, pagination, result limits, or whether completed tasks are excluded by default — the last of which it only implies indirectly.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the one non-obvious usage tip. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the basics, but it never addresses ordering/pagination or the relationship to sibling list_completed_tasks. The schema covers the parameters, so only the behavioral surface is left thin.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the inbox sentinel and the includeCompleted default of false. The description merely repeats the projectId sentinel and adds no syntax or semantics 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 the tasks in a project'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_completed_tasks or clarify how includeCompleted interacts with that sibling.

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 description gives one concrete usage hint (use projectId "inbox" for the signed-in user's inbox), which is helpful. But it offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over list_completed_tasks or search_tasks, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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