nc-mcp-server

list_message_reminders

Read-onlyIdempotent

List upcoming message reminders in chronological order, up to 10, including due ones. Exclude federated conversations and hide text from sensitive ones.

Instructions

List your upcoming message reminders, soonest first.

Talk returns at most the next 10, including ones already due but not yet sent, and leaves out federated conversations. In conversations you marked sensitive the message text is left empty.

Returns: JSON list of reminders with token, message_id, remind_at (UTC) and the message as a compact line ("[id] author: text").

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.9.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description layers on genuinely useful behavior: a hard cap of 10, inclusion of already-due-but-unsent reminders, exclusion of federated conversations, and blanked message text in sensitive conversations. That is real disclosure an agent could not infer from 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavior and a compact return summary. Slightly over-documented in the 'Returns' block given an output schema exists, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, cap, ordering, and the two edge cases (federated conversations, sensitive conversations) that would otherwise cause misreading of results.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. No parameter information is needed or expected.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('your upcoming message reminders') and ordering ('soonest first'), immediately distinguishing it from the sibling mutators set_message_reminder, remove_message_reminder and get_file_reminder.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the read-only listing framing, but the description never says when to reach for this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite. The stated constraints (10-item cap, federation exclusion) are scoping behavior, not selection guidance.

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

Deploy Server