Skip to main content
Glama

Onplana

by io.github.Onplana
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

bulk_create_tasks

Add a list of up to 50 tasks to an existing Onplana project in one call, at the project root or under a sprint / epic. Fits "add these tasks to my launch project" or a checklist pasted into the chat. Single transaction (all-or-nothing), in place of calling create_task N times; add_subtasks covers new tasks that are children of an existing task. THIS TOOL DOES NOT SCHEDULE. Tasks land with NO dates unless startDate and dueDate are set on each one, and there is no way to express durations or predecessors here at all. A schedule (phase durations, effort estimates, "task 5 depends on task 3", a critical path) sent through this tool arrives as a flat dateless list, and the Gantt, timeline and critical path are all empty. Use instantiate_plan instead, which takes estimatedDays per task and computes real start and due dates from them. It accepts a projectId, so it works on a project that already exists. Neither tool accepts predecessors: create the tasks first, then add each dependency with link_dependency. The result includes url for the project (and one per task). ALWAYS show the project link in your reply so the user can open what you just created.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tasksYes1-50 tasks. Each needs a title; optional description / status / priority / estimatedHours / startDate / dueDate (YYYY-MM-DD) / isMilestone / recurringRule / collaborators.
epicIdNoOptional epic to group them under (must belong to the project).
sprintIdNoOptional sprint to put them in (must belong to the project).
projectIdYesProject to create the tasks in.
idempotencyKeyNoOptional idempotency key. Pass a stable unique value (e.g. a UUID) to make this create safe to retry: calling again with the same key within 24h - even from a new session after a reconnect - replays the original result and creates no duplicate. Org-scoped; works across conversations.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / tasks / description
      Previous value: -"1-50 tasks. Each needs a title; optional description / status / priority / estimatedHours / startDate / dueDate (YYYY-MM-DD) / isMilestone."New value: +"1-50 tasks. Each needs a title; optional description / status / priority / estimatedHours / startDate / dueDate (YYYY-MM-DD) / isMilestone / recurringRule / collaborators."
    • addedInput schema / properties / tasks / items / properties / collaborators
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "People who work on this task, by user id, name or email. Added after the batch is created; anyone who cannot be added is reported in warnings.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / tasks / items / properties / priority / description
      Added value: +"Priority label (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL) that people set to rank work. It is not the critical path: the schedule engine computes that from dependencies, durations and the calendar, and priority does not change it."
    • addedInput schema / properties / tasks / items / properties / recurringRule
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Make this task recurring: { freq: daily|weekly|monthly, interval: int>=1, endDate?: ISO|null }. Set dueDate too so the worker can spawn the next occurrence.",
+  "properties": {
+    "endDate": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "freq": {
+      "enum": [
+        "daily",
+        "weekly",
+        "monthly"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "interval": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": [
+    "object",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context the annotations do not: single all-or-nothing transaction, no scheduling/dates unless set per task, no durations or predecessors support, and collaborator failures reported as warnings. The idempotencyKey explanation is consistent with idempotentHint=false (opt-in retry safety), not a contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core action and scope in the first sentence, then layers exclusions and alternatives. Despite its length, nearly every sentence carries non-redundant routing or behavioral information, so the size is justified by the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 5-parameter batch mutation with no output schema, the description covers transaction semantics, scheduling limitations, dependency handling, and even the response's `url` field plus a directive to show the link. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the parameter baseline. The description still adds meaning by clarifying that tasks land with NO dates unless startDate/dueDate are set on each item, which reframes how the date fields must be used. It does not go deeper on sprintId/epicId or idempotency edge cases beyond what the schema states.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Add a list of up to 50 tasks to an existing Onplana project in one call, at the project root or under a sprint / epic.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings create_task (single), add_subtasks (children of existing task), and instantiate_plan (scheduling), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives concrete usage triggers ('add these tasks to my launch project', a checklist pasted into chat), names the alternative for scheduling ('Use instantiate_plan instead'), and clarifies the dependency workflow ('create the tasks first, then add each dependency with link_dependency'). When-to-use, when-not, and alternatives are all spelled out.

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

All Onplana toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources