partial_update_remindersPartial update (PATCH) of a reminder — send only the fields to change (e.g. remind_at, text, the channel flags or recipient_id). Each reminder carries app_url, a deep link to the drawer of the task it is set on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| kwargs | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description must convey behavior. It states PATCH semantics and mentions the app_url deep link, but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, or response behavior. This leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.
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 with the first sentence front-loading purpose and usage, and the second adding useful resource context. It is concise, avoids redundancy, and every word contributes to understanding.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and one resource fact. It lacks details about return values, error conditions, or required permissions, making it adequate but not comprehensive for a write operation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists example updatable fields (remind_at, text, channel flags, recipient_id) that are not present in the schema's body, providing essential value. However, it does not explicitly map these fields to the body/kwargs structure, leaving some ambiguity about payload placement.
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 'Partial update (PATCH) of a reminder', which is a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'update_reminders' by emphasizing partial updates. Listing example fields further clarifies the tool's scope.
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 phrase 'send only the fields to change' clearly indicates when to use this tool instead of a full update, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool like 'update_reminders', so it lacks an explicit when-not directive.
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.