list_remindersList the reminders of a task (task_id path parameter), ordered by scheduled time. Each reminder shows when it fires (remind_at), the text, the chosen channels and whether it has already been sent. Each reminder carries app_url, a deep link to the drawer of the task it is set on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the description adds value by disclosing the ordering, returned fields (including whether sent), and the app_url deep link. This goes beyond the structured annotations and gives practical behavioral context.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds relevant detail (ordering, fields, deep link). There is no redundancy or fluff.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return semantics and ordering. It is slightly incomplete because of the path/body confusion and lack of mention of list_all_reminders, but overall it provides enough context for correct use in most scenarios.
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 description refers to task_id as a 'path parameter', but the schema shows it inside the required body object, a factual mismatch that could mislead an agent. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own description of the parameter.
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 states a specific action ('List'), resource ('reminders of a task'), and scope (task_id), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'list_all_reminders'. It also mentions ordering by scheduled time, which further clarifies its purpose.
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?
Usage is implied by 'of a task', indicating this is for a specific task's reminders. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_all_reminders or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving selection partly to inference.
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.