Skip to main content
Glama

UnRemind.me Submit

by io.github.esfih

Send someone an Unreminder

submit_unreminder

Sends a reminder to someone who has a public UnRemind.me page, on behalf of the person you are helping. It does NOT appear in the recipient's list immediately: it lands in their 'Submitted to you' queue for them to approve, edit or decline. You need the recipient's username, which the person you are helping will have — it is the last part of their page URL, e.g. unremind.me/johndoe. Do not guess a username: there is deliberately no lookup, and a wrong guess sends someone else's reminder to a stranger.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNoDetail the recipient needs to act on it: context, links, what done looks like. Optional but strongly preferred — a bare title often gets declined.
titleYesShort and action-oriented, e.g. 'Send the signed lease back'. This is what the recipient sees first.
due_atNoISO 8601 with a UTC offset, e.g. 2026-09-02T14:00:00-04:00. Only set this if a real deadline was stated; an invented one is worse than none.
page_keyNoOnly needed if the recipient has made their page private. It is part of the link they shared. Omit otherwise.
usernameYesThe recipient's UnRemind.me username — the last part of their page URL, e.g. 'johndoe' for unremind.me/johndoe.
via_channelNoHow you are reaching us, e.g. 'Claude Code'. Shown to the recipient as the CHANNEL the person used, never as the sender. Optional.
submitter_nameNoThe name of the PERSON you are sending on behalf of — not your own name as an agent. The recipient sees this. Required UNLESS they have set it in this server's configuration.
submitter_emailNoThe sending person's email — how they receive the status link and the recipient's answer, and what lets them raise their sending allowance by signing in. Required UNLESS they have set it in this server's configuration. Ask them for it; never invent one.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false (no hints), so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the reminder lands in a 'Submitted to you' queue for approval rather than appearing immediately, explains that it is sent on behalf of the person and the recipient sees the submitter's name, and warns that there is no username lookup. These are important behavioral facts beyond what annotations provide.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core behavior and timeline. Each sentence contributes meaningful information: the queue behavior, the username source, and the explicit warnings. No redundant or filler sentences; it is appropriately detailed for an 8-parameter tool.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, the on-behalf semantics, the queue mechanics, and all parameter pitfalls. It gives enough for an agent to safely call the tool without guessing usernames or inventing emails, which are the most likely errors. No critical gap remains.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds substantial guidance beyond the schema: notes should be strongly preferred or risk declination, due_at should only be set if a real deadline exists, and submitter_email should never be invented and must be asked for. These add critical usage nuances that are not present in the schema.

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?

The description states a clear verb ('Sends a reminder'), a specific resource (someone with a public UnRemind.me page), and the on-behalf relationship. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_submission_guidance by being about the actual submission action. The queue behavior is mentioned, making it unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives explicit context for when to use the tool: when the helper has the recipient's username from their page URL, and it strongly warns against guessing. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool get_submission_guidance, but its purpose is clear. A brief note that get_submission_guidance is for crafting content would have pushed this to a 5.

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

All UnRemind.me Submit toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct roles: one provides guidance and context, the other performs the single submission action. There is no overlap in purpose or confusion about which to call.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_submission_guidance and submit_unreminder. The naming is predictable and aligned with their actions.

Tool Count3/5

Two tools is technically sufficient for a narrow submit-focused server, but by the calibration it feels thin since there are only a guidance helper and one action. It is borderline but reasonable for the stated purpose.

Completeness4/5

Core submission workflow is covered: guidance before submitting and the submit action itself. Minor gap is the lack of any status or management tool for submitted reminders, but that appears outside the server's scope.

Resources