ticktick-mcp

sync_check

Pull account changes offline-first in web mode: pass checkPoint=0 for full snapshot, then reuse returned checkPoint for incremental pulls of tasks, projects, tags, and columns.

Instructions

Offline-first delta pull of the whole account (web mode only): tasks, projects, tags and columns. Pass checkPoint=0 for a full snapshot, then reuse the returned checkPoint for incremental pulls.

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": "sync_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`checkPoint`	No	Last checkPoint from a previous call (default 0 = full snapshot)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 'web mode only' constraint and the stateful checkpoint/reuse pattern, which are real behavioral traits. It stops short of covering auth/permission needs, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the scope and ending with the operational instruction. Every clause adds information; nothing is padding.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, mode restriction, and the pagination/checkpoint contract including the returned value. Missing only edge behavior (what happens outside web mode, error cases), which is minor here.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already defines checkPoint, but the description adds genuine workflow meaning beyond the field doc by pairing checkPoint=0 with full snapshot and explaining that the returned value should be reused. That goes past the baseline of 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('delta pull of the whole account') and enumerates the payload (tasks, projects, tags, columns). This clearly separates it from the many single-resource siblings like list_tasks and list_projects, since it is the only bulk account-state sync.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit usage workflow: pass checkPoint=0 for a full snapshot, then reuse the returned checkPoint for incremental pulls, plus a mode restriction ('web mode only'). It does not, however, state when to prefer this over the per-resource list_* tools.

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