Retrieve all server-side reminders and send push notifications to your phone. Uses your Full Access Token to fetch pending reminders for timely alerts.
Get all server-side reminders, push notifications to the phone. Requires the Full Access Token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses an additional side effect—pushing notifications to the phone—and states the authorization requirement. This adds useful behavioral context, though the punctuation leaves some ambiguity about whether the push is part of the tool's behavior or a separate instruction.
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 short and front-loads the main action, but the comma splice in 'Get all server-side reminders, push notifications to the phone' creates confusion. A simple conjunction or rewording would make it fully clear.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema and a read-only annotation, the description covers the key extras: the all-reminders scope, the notification behavior, and the Full Access Token requirement. It is adequate, though the wording could be cleaner.
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 zero parameters and schema coverage is complete, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter detail for the description to add.
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 identifies a clear verb and resource: 'Get all server-side reminders.' The 'push notifications to the phone' clause slightly muddies the core purpose, and it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_due_items, but the primary action is still unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_due_items or set_reminder. The mention of 'Requires the Full Access Token' is an authentication prerequisite, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.