list_all_remindersList reminders across all of the user's tasks (e.g. what fires today) — filter by remind_at (__date, __gte, __lte) and is_sent. Unlike list_reminders, not scoped to one task. Each reminder carries app_url, a deep link to the drawer of the task it is set on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the cross-task scope, filter options, and that each reminder includes an app_url deep link. It does not disclose pagination or default ordering, but the schema covers pagination fields.
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?
The description is three sentences long, each carrying substantial information: purpose, filters, differentiation, and output note. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, with no wasted words.
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?
The tool is a list operation with no output schema, but the description mentions an important output field (app_url) and the key filtering capabilities. The schema provides pagination details, so the description covers enough context for correct usage. However, it does not mention default ordering or pagination behavior, though these are less critical given the schema.
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 input schema already describes most parameters (e.g., page, page_size, date formats), but the description adds semantic meaning by explaining that remind_at filters are available with __date, __gte, __lte and is_sent is a filter. The example 'what fires today' clarifies a typical use of the __date parameter, going beyond the schema's basic format descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists reminders across all of the user's tasks, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_reminders by noting it is not scoped to one task, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description explains when to use this tool: when you need reminders across all tasks, and contrasts it with list_reminders for task-specific queries. It also indicates filterable fields, giving practical guidance for typical use cases like 'what fires today'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly scoped to a specific resource and action, but a few near-overlapping pairs (e.g., list_attachments vs list_taskattachments, create_tasktags vs add_tag_tasks) could cause misselection without close reading. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity.
The dominant verb_noun CRUD pattern (create_, list_, retrieve_, update_, partial_update_, destroy_) is consistent and predictable. However, non-standard pluralizations (companys, resumeentrys, taskdependencys) and a handful of irregular names (task_assign_user, move_relate_to_tasks) introduce minor inconsistencies.
With 83 tools, this server is far beyond a well-scoped MCP surface, even for a feature-complete project management suite. The sheer volume will overwhelm agents and make selection inefficient, clearly falling into the extreme-mismatch range.
The toolset provides thorough lifecycle coverage across companies, projects, tasks, sprints, attachments, comments, dependencies, tags, reminders, resume entries, tickets, and users. Missing operations like company deletion or task-attachment creation appear intentional and are worked around via existing tools.