retrieve_remindersRetrieve a single reminder of a task by 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's non-mutating nature is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that each reminder carries an app_url linking to the task's drawer, enriching the agent's understanding of the returned data without contradicting annotations.
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 consists of two concise sentences that immediately state what the tool does and add a key detail about the return value. No filler or redundant wording, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
With no output schema, the description helps by revealing that reminders include an app_url field, giving the agent a concrete expectation of the return data. For a simple retrieval tool with strong annotations, this is fairly complete, though listing other fields or error behaviors would be more comprehensive.
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 schema itself fully describes both parameters: task_id is 'ID of the task the reminder belongs to' and pk is 'The id of the reminder'. The description only says 'by id' without specifying which parameter, so it doesn't add much beyond the schema. Since the schema provides clear descriptions, this is adequate, though the description could have clarified that it uses the reminder id (pk) rather than the task id.
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 verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('a single reminder'), and the method ('by id'). It clearly distinguishes itself from list-type tools by focusing on a single reminder and even provides an extra detail about the app_url deep link, making the 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 implies usage for fetching one reminder by id, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_reminders for multiple reminders or create_reminders for creating. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.
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.