List nudges (reminders) in a date range by specifying lower and upper bounds. Retrieve scheduled reminders for any period to manage tasks.
List nudges (reminders) in a date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD lower bound (required). | |
| before | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD upper bound (required). | |
| frameId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already covers safety, and the description's 'List' is consistent with a read operation. The description adds only the 'reminders' alias, with no mention of pagination, sorting, return shape, or frame-level behavior, so it neither contradicts nor substantially expands on the annotations.
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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, resource, alias, and scope. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and every word earns its place.
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 read-only list operation, the required date bounds are covered by the schema and the core behavior is clear. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the response contains, and the frameId filtering role is left undocumented, so some invocation-relevant context is missing.
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 67%: after and before are documented as required date bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'in a date range,' and the optional frameId parameter remains unexplained in both schema and description.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('nudges'), and adds a clarifying alias ('reminders') plus the scope ('in a date range'). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from the many sibling list_* tools.
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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The date-range phrase is more of a parameter constraint than a usage guideline, so the agent is left to infer appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.