Zen Money MCP

update_reminder

Modify an existing reminder's amount, account, category, date, or recurrence schedule by ID to keep recurring financial entries accurate.

Instructions

Изменить сумму, счета, категорию, дату или повторение напоминания.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_reminder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`step`	No
`payee`	No
`amount`	No
`notify`	No
`points`	No
`account`	No
`comment`	No
`endDate`	No
`category`	No
`interval`	No
`startDate`	No
`toAccount`	No
`receivedAmount`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it does not say that this is a mutation, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, whether null explicitly clears a value, or what happens to recurrence when interval/startDate change. For a 14-parameter mutation tool this is a substantial gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates the editable fields with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly the cause of the semantic gaps rather than a virtue of its own.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and zero schema descriptions needs a much richer description than one sentence. An agent cannot infer partial-update semantics or the meaning of half the parameters from this definition.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so all 14 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description names amount, account(s), category, date and recurrence, which maps loosely to maybe six parameters, leaving id, step, payee, notify, points, comment and receivedAmount entirely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb 'Изменить' plus the resource 'напоминания' and the list of mutable fields give a concrete operation, and the name/scope clearly separates it from create_reminder and delete_reminder in the sibling set. It falls short of 5 only because the field list is partial relative to the 14 actual parameters.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus create_reminder or delete_reminder, and nothing about prerequisites such as needing an existing reminder id. The usage is only implied by the verb 'Изменить'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.