Export reviewed deadline reminders with titles and ISO-8601 due dates to an ICS calendar file for import into calendar apps.
Export reviewed {title, due_at ISO-8601} reminders to an ICS file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| filename | No | chaoxing-deadlines.ics |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the output is an ICS file but does not disclose where the file is written, whether it overwrites an existing file, what permissions are needed, or what the return value contains.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action, input shape, and output format efficiently.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, the description is thin on file-writing behavior and the meaning of 'reviewed' reminders. It is minimally adequate for a simple export tool but leaves gaps.
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%, but the description clarifies the required 'items' parameter as containing objects with 'title' and 'due_at' in ISO-8601 format, which adds significant meaning beyond the bare array-of-objects schema. The optional 'filename' parameter is not described, though its default is self-explanatory in the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (Export) and resource (reviewed reminders) and specifies the output format (ICS file). It does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling tool, but the purpose is immediately clear.
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 'reviewed reminders' implies a precondition and intended use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.