Create a new Apple reminder with a title and optional due date, priority, notes, and target list. Returns the reminder's unique ID for later use.
Create a reminder. due is an optional ISO date or datetime. priority is 1 (high) to 9 (low). Returns its uid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| due | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| priority | No | ||
| list_name | No | ||
| timezone_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully adds the due format, priority range, and return value (uid), but omits side effects, permissions, validation behavior, and what list_name/timezone_name do. Some behavioral context is present but incomplete for a mutation tool.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then key parameter semantics, then return value. No filler or redundancy.
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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this is too sparse. It does not explain required title behavior, list placement, timezone handling, notes, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate for six parameters. It only explains due and priority; title, notes, list_name, and timezone_name remain undocumented beyond their bare schema titles.
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 and resource: 'Create a reminder.' This clearly distinguishes it from reminders_list_*, reminders_update, and reminders_delete, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calendar_create_event, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the creation operation for reminders.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.