Skip to main content
Glama

Asana

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Asana Create Task

asana_create_task
Idempotent

Create a new task in a project. Returns task ID, name, and permalink. Requires project ID and task name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesTask name
notesNoTask description / notes
due_onNoDue date in YYYY-MM-DD format
assigneeNoAssignee GID or email address
projectsNoComma-separated project GIDs to add the task to
workspaceNoWorkspace GID (auto-resolved if omitted)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gidNoTask GID
nameNoTask name
notesNoTask notes
due_onNoDue date in YYYY-MM-DD format
assigneeNoAssignee identifier
projectsNoProjects task is added to
completedNoTask completion status
permalink_urlNoTask permalink URL

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it returns task ID, name, and permalink. However, it does not mention potential duplicates or any side effects beyond creation.

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 two sentences and to the point. It front-loads the primary action and critical information. Minor redundancy ('task' repeated) but overall efficient.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and return values. However, it fails to mention that 'projects' is optional or that 'workspace' can be auto-resolved. The contradiction about required parameters reduces completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description states 'Requires project ID and task name' which contradicts the schema where only 'name' is required and 'projects' is optional. This misleads the agent about parameter requirements.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create a new task in a project') and mentions the return values (ID, name, permalink). It distinguishes from siblings like asana_get_task and asana_list_tasks by specifying it creates a task.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like asana_search_tasks or asana_list_tasks. The description mentions required parameters but does not clarify when creation is appropriate or what prerequisites exist.

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

All Asana toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes Asana project management tools with a large number of Pipeworx data retrieval tools. Within the Pipeworx subset, tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded have overlapping purposes, and multiple prediction market tools exist (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). This creates ambiguity and potential for misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names lack a consistent pattern. Some use 'asana_' prefix, others use descriptive phrases (e.g., 'compare_entities', 'generate_llms_txt'), and some are single verbs (e.g., 'forget', 'remember'). Mix of different conventions leads to unpredictability.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is high for a server named 'Asana', yet only 6 tools are Asana-specific. The majority are Pipeworx tools unrelated to Asana. This overloading makes the server feel bloated and off-purpose.

Completeness2/5

For Asana functionality, the set is incomplete: missing update/delete task, project management features, etc. The Pipeworx tools are extensive but irrelevant to the server's stated purpose, leaving the Asana workflow with notable gaps.

Resources