Skip to main content
Glama

Monday

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Monday Create Item

monday_create_item
Idempotent

Create a new item in a board (e.g., board ID "12345", name "New Task"). Returns created item ID and name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_apiKeyYesMonday.com API token
board_idYesBoard ID
group_idYesGroup ID within the board
item_nameYesName for the new item
column_valuesNoJSON string of column values to set (e.g., {"status":"Working on it"})

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoCreated item ID
nameNoItem name
created_atNoItem creation timestamp

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "created_at": {
+      "description": "Item creation timestamp",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Created item ID",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "description": "Item name",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "_apiKey": "your-monday-api-key",
+    "board_id": "12345",
+    "group_id": "group_1",
+    "item_name": "New Task"
+  },
+  {
+    "_apiKey": "your-monday-api-key",
+    "board_id": "12345",
+    "column_values": "{\"status\":\"Working on it\",\"priority\":\"High\"}",
+    "group_id": "group_1",
+    "item_name": "Bug Fix"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by stating the return behavior (created item ID and name) and provides an example with optional column_values, which goes beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, gives an example, and mentions the return value. Every part earns its place with no superfluous wording.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the detailed schema, annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and return value. It could mention prerequisites or error handling, but for a create operation with full schema documentation, it is adequate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds a small example (board ID '12345') but no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool creates a new item in a board, with a concrete example (board ID '12345', name 'New Task'). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling read/search tools like monday_list_items and monday_search_items.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The context is clear: this tool is for creating a new item. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the action inherently differentiates it from sibling list/get/search tools. No exclusions are stated, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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

All Monday 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set has several overlapping tool clusters. ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in behavior, ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap heavily, and polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk all target opportunity-finding/fill-checking on prediction markets. While individual descriptions are detailed, an agent could easily pick the wrong tool among these near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent across the surface. The monday_* and polymarket_* prefixes are consistent within their subgroups, and ask_pipeworx_* forms a family, but the rest mix verb_phrase (validate_claim, compare_entities, discover_tools), noun_phrase (entity_profile, recent_changes, suggest_questions), and bare verbs (remember, forget, recall) with no unifying pattern. This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools, the surface is overloaded. The Monday.com integration alone only needs 5 tools, and the remaining 31 are a sprawling research/meta-toolkit. Many of these could be consolidated (e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta, or the several polymarket scanners), so the count feels inflated beyond what the server's core purpose requires.

Completeness3/5

The data-research and monitoring side is thorough, covering querying, grounding, comparison, profiling, entity resolution, subscriptions, memory, and feedback. However, the Monday.com integration is incomplete: it offers create/list/get/search for items but no update or delete operations, and no board creation or modification. This leaves the Monday workflow with dead ends.

Resources