Retrieve all reminder lists from Apple Reminders to organize and manage tasks across different categories.
Get all reminder lists (calendars)
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_all_lists"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'all' entails (e.g., scope, limits). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate, though not misleading.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all reminder lists') with a clarifying parenthetical ('calendars'). There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it optimally concise for its simple function.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete—it states what the tool does. However, it lacks context for usage (e.g., how it fits with siblings) and behavioral details (e.g., response format, errors), which would be helpful even for simple tools. It meets the bare minimum but doesn't excel.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline high score. However, it doesn't reach 5 because it could optionally note the lack of parameters (e.g., 'no inputs required'), but this is minor.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all reminder lists (calendars)'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on individual reminders or specific subsets (e.g., get_todays_reminders, get_overdue_reminders) by targeting lists/calendars. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., get_reminders might also retrieve lists), keeping it from a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), differentiate from similar tools like get_reminders (which might also list items), or specify use cases (e.g., for overview vs. detailed views). This leaves the agent without context for selection among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.