Retrieve all active reminders in a single list. Review pending investment alerts and keep your InvestBrain discipline plan on track.
Get all active reminders.
Returns:
list: All active reminders
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Active' hints that inactive/completed reminders are filtered out, which is useful, but there is nothing about ordering, pagination, ownership scoping, or side effects — thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Two short lines, front-loaded with the action, with no wasted prose. The 'Returns' block mildly restates the first sentence, but the cost is trivial.
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 no-parameter, no-annotation list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the minimum needed: what is fetched and the rough shape of the return value. It could go further on filtering or ordering, but the tool's simplicity keeps the gap small.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the empty schema already conveys.
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 ('Get') and resource ('reminders') with a clear scope qualifier ('all active'). It does not name or differentiate from the sibling reminder_set_reminder/reminder_delete_reminder, but the nouns make the read-vs-write split obvious.
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 exclusions, no mention of alternatives such as reminder_set_reminder or reminder_delete_reminder. The agent must infer that this is the listing operation purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.