Create a local Apple Reminder in a chosen list with title, optional due date, notes, and priority. Use it to add tasks to Apple Reminders through natural language.
Create a local Apple Reminder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | Yes | ||
| dueAt | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| priority | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Input schema / properties / dueAt / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "format": "date-time",
- "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z|([+-](?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d)))$",
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z|([+-](?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d)))$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds essentially nothing beyond 'local' — no note on whether the reminder syncs, what happens on duplicate titles, or which account/list it lands in.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — genuinely concise. It loses a point only because the terseness borders on under-specification for a 5-parameter mutation tool.
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 create tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description should explain required inputs and at least basic return behavior. It supplies none of that, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid call without reverse-engineering the schema.
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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and provides none. Critical details are absent: 'list' must reference an existing list, dueAt expects an ISO-8601 date-time, and priority is 0-9. None of this is surfaced.
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?
States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Apple Reminder'), and 'local' hints at scope, so an agent knows the basic operation. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like apple_reminders_create_list, apple_notes_create, or apple_textedit_create, which is what a 5 requires.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that 'list' must already exist), and no mention of alternatives such as apple_reminders_create_list when the target list does not exist. The agent is left to infer everything.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.