list_notificationsList all notifications and reminders assigned to a specific OmniFocus task by providing its ID or name.
List all notifications (reminders) on a task
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | No | The ID of the task | |
| taskName | No | The name of the task (alternative to taskId) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| meta | No | ||
| tool | Yes | ||
| success | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the useful clarification that notifications are reminders, but does not describe return format, ordering, or behavior when no parameters are given. Value is modest given the 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action and scope without any filler. It is concise and immediately understandable.
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 straightforward read-only list operation with an output schema and two optional, well-documented parameters, the description is adequate. It does not explain the case where neither parameter is provided, but the schema implies at least one is needed, and the overall tool is simple.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters, so the description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify that taskId and taskName are alternatives or which one to use, but the schema itself notes taskName is an alternative.
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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all notifications (reminders)' scoped to a task. It distinguishes itself from sibling add_notification and remove_notification tools by purpose, leaving no ambiguity about what operation this performs.
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?
While this is the only list-notifications tool among siblings, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use it or which parameter (taskId vs taskName) to prefer. The use case is implied rather than stated, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.