Set a Slack reminder by providing the reminder text and when to trigger it. Accepts natural language times such as 'tomorrow at 9am' or Unix timestamps.
Create a reminder for the authenticated user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Reminder message text | |
| time | Yes | When to remind — Unix timestamp or natural language (e.g., 'in 30 minutes', 'tomorrow at 9am') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning persistence, side effects, authentication requirements, return value, or how the reminder will be delivered. This is minimal transparency for a creation tool.
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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource and includes the relevant scope ('for the authenticated user') without verbose elaboration.
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 simple two-parameter tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks information about the return format or confirmation behavior, and there is no output schema to compensate. An agent can invoke it correctly but may not know what to expect in response.
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 the input schema fully documents both parameters ('text' and 'time'). The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, but this is acceptable given the schema already provides thorough descriptions.
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 ('Create'), the resource ('a reminder'), and the scope ('for the authenticated user'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_reminders, complete_reminder, and delete_reminder, which handle other lifecycle stages.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or why an agent might prefer add_reminder over schedule_message or list_reminders. Usage must be inferred purely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.