Mark an iCloud reminder as completed by specifying its list and reminder ID, helping you track tasks and maintain an organized reminders list.
Mark a reminder as completed in iCloud Reminders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listName | Yes | List name containing the reminder | |
| reminderId | Yes | Reminder ID to mark as completed |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. For a mutation tool it says nothing about whether completion is reversible, whether it is idempotent, what happens with an invalid reminderId, or whether permissions are required. It reveals only the state transition itself, which the name already implies.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, and the action is front-loaded. It is perhaps too terse to be maximally useful, but nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
This is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should carry behavioral and result context. It omits reversibility, error behavior, and what the agent can expect back, leaving the definition under-specified for a write operation.
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 100%, so both parameters (listName, reminderId) are already documented by the schema. The description adds no format, casing, or ID-sourcing detail beyond what the structured fields provide, making 3 the correct baseline.
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 and resource ('Mark a reminder as completed') and scopes it to iCloud Reminders, so the agent knows the target domain. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from update_reminder, which could plausibly perform the same state change, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous on its face.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_reminder, delete_reminder, or get_reminder. The only implied usage is that the reminder must already exist in the named list, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.