create_taskCreate a new task with optional project, priority, due date, and recurrence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Task title | |
| status | No | Initial status | |
| is_top3 | No | Mark as Top 3 focus task (max 3 allowed) | |
| due_date | No | Due date (Y-m-d format) | |
| priority | No | Priority: 1=high, 2=medium, 3=low | |
| project_id | No | Assign to project by ID | |
| recurrence | No | Recurrence pattern | |
| description | No | Task description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them; however, it also adds no behavioral detail beyond the creation act. It does not state the return value, idempotency, or any side effects, so the agent has no information about what happens after a successful call.
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. It is appropriately short for a simple creation tool, though the content is sparse.
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?
With 8 parameters and no output schema, the one-sentence description leaves key questions unanswered, such as what the tool returns and whether there are restrictions visible elsewhere. The schema covers field semantics, but the description does not compensate for the missing output contract or provide operational context.
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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description's mention of optional project, priority, due date, and recurrence merely echoes a subset of these fields and adds no new constraints, defaults, or format details.
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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new task') and lists several optional fields. Within the sibling set of task operations (update_task, complete_task, delete_task, list_tasks), the create verb makes the intended action clear, though it does not explicitly call out 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?
No guidance is given about when to use create_task versus update_task, complete_task, or delete_task, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The only signal is the verb itself, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.