create_tasksCreate a task. Requires project_id. Optional: title, description (Markdown), status, priority, story_points, parent (for sub-tasks) and sprint. New tasks are appended and the level is reordered automatically. Every task carries app_url, a ready-to-use deep link into the ProWoDo web app — give it to the user instead of describing where to click.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: new tasks are appended and the level is reordered automatically, and every task has an app_url deep link in the response. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent anticipate side effects and output.
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 three sentences and reasonably front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence states purpose, the second lists key parameters, and the third explains behavior and output usage. It earns its length, though the misleading 'Optional: title' phrase could be reworded for precision.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (many fields, nested body object, no output schema), the description is not complete enough. It incorrectly labels title as optional, omits numerous optional parameters, and does not clarify that body is a required wrapper object. It does provide helpful app_url guidance, but the inaccuracies and omissions leave 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?
Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only lists a handful of parameters (project_id, title, description, status, priority, story_points, parent, sprint) and omits many others like order, reach, effort, impact, progress, confidence, date fields, and flags. Worse, it incorrectly states title is optional when the schema marks it required, leading to potential misuse.
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 'Create a task', a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like create_projects or create_sprints. However, it inaccurately lists title as optional when the schema requires it inside body, slightly muddying the clarity of what is required to create a task.
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?
The description gives some usage context: mentioning that parent is for sub-tasks, sprint associates a sprint, and instructing to give the returned app_url to the user instead of describing click paths. But it lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., create vs update_tasks) and does not mention any exclusions or preconditions beyond requiring project_id.
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.
Most tools are clearly scoped to a specific resource and action, but a few near-overlapping pairs (e.g., list_attachments vs list_taskattachments, create_tasktags vs add_tag_tasks) could cause misselection without close reading. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity.
The dominant verb_noun CRUD pattern (create_, list_, retrieve_, update_, partial_update_, destroy_) is consistent and predictable. However, non-standard pluralizations (companys, resumeentrys, taskdependencys) and a handful of irregular names (task_assign_user, move_relate_to_tasks) introduce minor inconsistencies.
With 83 tools, this server is far beyond a well-scoped MCP surface, even for a feature-complete project management suite. The sheer volume will overwhelm agents and make selection inefficient, clearly falling into the extreme-mismatch range.
The toolset provides thorough lifecycle coverage across companies, projects, tasks, sprints, attachments, comments, dependencies, tags, reminders, resume entries, tickets, and users. Missing operations like company deletion or task-attachment creation appear intentional and are worked around via existing tools.