tasks.createCreate one private general task in the selected SparkLaunch project and optionally assign it to an accepted project member.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| due_at | No | ||
| priority | No | normal | |
| project_id | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| assignee_email | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: the task is 'private' and 'general', it is created in a specific project, and assignment is only possible to an 'accepted project member.' This clarifies intended behavior without contradicting the idempotentHint or destructiveHint annotations.
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 dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and includes the most relevant constraints without redundancy.
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?
The output schema exists and annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness, so some gaps are acceptable. However, with seven parameters and no schema descriptions, the description leaves too much unstated about optional fields like priority, due date, description, and idempotency_key for an agent to fully understand invocation trade-offs.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only hints at project_id and assignee_email; it does not explain title, due_at, priority, description, or idempotency_key. Most parameter semantics are left to the schema property names and types.
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 and resource: creating a task, with qualifiers 'private general task' and 'in the selected SparkLaunch project.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tasks.delete, tasks.list, and tasks.update by focusing on creation.
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 clear context: this tool is for creating a task in a specific project and optionally assigning it to an accepted member. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide appropriate use over the task siblings.
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.
Domain prefixes (crm., cap_table., landing.) clearly separate broad modules, and most tools target a specific resource and action. However, within modules there are boundary overlaps—crm.add_contact_note vs crm.log_activity and cap_table.dilution_preview vs cap_table.simulate_raise—where descriptions must be read carefully to avoid a wrong pick.
The dominant pattern is module.verb_noun (e.g., crm.create_lead, cap_table.update_stakeholder), which is clear and readable. But a subset of top-level tools uses object_verb with flat underscores (e.g., shortlink_create, qr_generate, campaign_archive) and one outlier (campaign_stats) breaks the verb pattern, so conventions are mixed.
86 tools is an extreme surface for any single MCP server, well past the 50+ threshold that makes coherent selection impractical. Even though the features span several business domains, this would be far more usable split into focused servers per module.
The covered domains are broadly complete: cap table, CRM, incorporation, landing, projects, sparkroom, tasks, and validation all have read/write workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps remain (no campaign listing/update, no branding palette delete/update, no contact deletion) but none of them blocks the main product workflows.