QuintaDB

update_reminder

Idempotent

Change a reminder that exists: the date field, how many days before, the time, the time zone, who gets it (written addresses, or the address in a field of each record), whether it repeats, and which records it reads (a report's, or the whole table's). The answer says in words who gets it, when and for which records.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "app_id": "<app_id>",
      "reminder_id": "<reminder_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_reminder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`app_id`	Yes	Project ID (from list_projects)
`repeat`	No	every_day \| every_week \| every_month \| every_year, or "" for once. every_day goes to EVERY record it reads, whatever the date: it is refused without a report
`run_time`	No	HH:MM, 24 hours
`report_id`	No	A report of the table (id or name): only its records are read; "" = the whole table
`time_zone`	No	e.g. UTC+02
`date_field`	No	The date field's name or id
`recipients`	No	The whole list of email addresses ("me" = the person you are talking to); an empty list = the record's owner
`all_records`	No	Only with repeat every_day and no report: true = the person asked for EVERY record of the table, every day
`days_before`	No	0 = on the day, negative = after it
`email_field`	No	A field of the table (name or id) each record's address is read from, instead of written addresses; "" takes it off
`reminder_id`	Yes	From list_reminders

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 10, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / recipients / description

Previous value: -"The whole list of email addresses; an empty list = the record's owner"New value: +"The whole list of email addresses (\"me\" = the person you are talking to); an empty list = the record's owner"

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / all_records

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only with repeat every_day and no report: true = the person asked for EVERY record of the table, every day",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / email_field

Added value: +{
+  "description": "A field of the table (name or id) each record's address is read from, instead of written addresses; \"\" takes it off",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / repeat / description

Previous value: -"every_day | every_week | every_month | every_year, or \"\" for once"New value: +"every_day | every_week | every_month | every_year, or \"\" for once. every_day goes to EVERY record it reads, whatever the date: it is refused without a report"

addedInput schema / properties / report_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "A report of the table (id or name): only its records are read; \"\" = the whole table",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedOct 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, and the description does not contradict them. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact, the shape of the confirmation response ('The answer says in words who gets it, when and for which records'), but says nothing about partial-vs-full update semantics, permission requirements, or what happens to fields that are omitted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and then lists the changeable dimensions, followed by one short sentence on the response. It is dense but readable, though the field list overlaps heavily with what the schema already enumerates.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the changeable surface and the response content, which is helpful. It still omits whether unspecified parameters are preserved or cleared, and gives no prerequisite guidance on obtaining reminder_id, which is a meaningful gap for a tool of this size.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the per-parameter detail, including subtle semantics like empty recipients, negative days_before, and every_day requiring a report. The description loosely maps fields to the changeable aspects (e.g., written addresses vs a field on each record) but adds no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Change a reminder that exists') on a specific resource and then enumerates exactly which aspects are changeable: date field, days before, time, time zone, recipients, repeat behavior, and record scope. An agent can distinguish this from create_reminder, delete_reminder, and create_schedule from the text alone.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the field enumeration ('change X, Y, Z'), with no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or sibling routing to create_reminder/delete_reminder. The description never states that a reminder must already exist and be identified (e.g., via list_reminders) before calling, leaving an agent to infer the workflow.

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

All QuintaDB tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?