Skip to main content
Glama
sheacoding

MCP Reminder

by sheacoding

list_todos

Retrieve and filter todo items by status to track pending, completed, or all tasks within the MCP Reminder system.

Instructions

列出待办事项

Args: status: 筛选状态,可选值: "pending"(未完成)、"completed"(已完成)、"all"(全部),默认"pending"

Returns: 待办事项列表

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNopending

Implementation Reference

  • The `list_todos` function, registered as an MCP tool, retrieves and filters tasks based on their status ("pending", "completed", or "all") and returns them as a structured list.
    def list_todos(status: str = "pending") -> dict:
        """
        列出待办事项
    
        Args:
            status: 筛选状态,可选值: "pending"(未完成)、"completed"(已完成)、"all"(全部),默认"pending"
    
        Returns:
            待办事项列表
        """
        todos = storage.load_todos()
    
        # 筛选
        if status == "pending":
            todos = [t for t in todos if t.status == "pending"]
        elif status == "completed":
            todos = [t for t in todos if t.status == "completed"]
        # status == "all" 则不筛选
    
        logger.info(f"列出待办事项,状态: {status}, 数量: {len(todos)}")
    
        todos_data = [
            {
                "id": todo.id,
                "title": todo.title,
                "description": todo.description,
                "remind_time": todo.remind_time,
                "status": todo.status,
                "created_at": todo.created_at
            }
            for todo in todos
        ]
    
        return {
            "success": True,
            "count": len(todos),
            "todos": todos_data,
            "status_filter": status
        }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool returns a '待办事项列表' (todo list), it doesn't describe format, pagination, sorting, or any limitations. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered about what the agent can expect.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns). The Chinese text is concise and each sentence serves a purpose. However, the English translations in parentheses create some redundancy, and the structure could be more front-loaded with the core purpose emphasized earlier.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics well, but lacks behavioral context about the returned list format and doesn't provide usage guidance relative to sibling tools. For a list operation, more detail about what '待办事项列表' contains would be helpful.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It fully documents the single parameter 'status', including its purpose ('筛选状态' - filter status), optional values with translations ('pending'(未完成), 'completed'(已完成), 'all'(全部)), and default value ('默认"pending"'). This completely compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as '列出待办事项' (list todos), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pending_todos' or 'check_all_reminders', which appear to have overlapping functionality. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_pending_todos' and 'check_all_reminders' available, there's no indication of when this filtered list approach is preferable or what distinguishes it from other listing tools. Only basic parameter information is provided without usage context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sheacoding/mcp-reminder'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server