Skip to main content
Glama

clickup

by io.usefulapi

Create task

clickup_create_task
Destructive

WRITE: create a new task in a list. name is required; the list is the {list_id} path param, not a body field. ClickUp REST: POST /list/{list_id}/task.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe task name (required).
tagsNoTag names to attach.
parentNoParent task id — set to create this task as a subtask.
statusNoStatus name (must be a valid status in the list).
list_idYesThe list id to create the task in (path param, not body).
due_dateNoDue date as Unix time in ms.
priorityNoTask priority: 1=Urgent, 2=High, 3=Normal, 4=Low.
assigneesNoUser ids to assign the task to (numeric).
start_dateNoStart date as Unix time in ms.
descriptionNoThe task description / body text.
due_date_timeNoWhether due_date carries a time component (else date-only).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The annotation declares destructiveHint=true, but creating a task is not destructive. The description says 'WRITE: create a new task', which contradicts the destructive hint. Per the rubric, this is an annotation contradiction, and the score is 1.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with the 'WRITE:' prefix, a specific verb+resource, and the REST endpoint. No wasted words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the created task ID), error conditions, or authentication requirements. Combined with the contradictory destructive annotation, the description is incomplete for a create operation with 11 parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds that 'name' is required and that list_id is a path parameter, but the schema already states these facts, providing minimal extra value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('a new task in a list'), includes the exact REST endpoint, and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_task and create_task_comment.

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?

It clearly states the operation (create a new task) and emphasizes that list_id is a path parameter rather than a body field, which guides correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over alternatives or mention scenarios like subtask creation via the parent parameter.

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

All clickup 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a unique resource+action combination, with clear scoping (e.g., get_tasks vs search_tasks differ by list vs workspace, list_lists vs list_folderless_lists by parent). No two tools appear to do the same thing, and the descriptions make boundaries explicit.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_, get_, list_, search_, update_+resource), prefixed with clickup_. No camelCase or unconventional verbs are present.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools is a well-scoped size for a project management API, covering hierarchy traversal (workspaces, spaces, folders, lists), task operations, comments, and user info. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers core CRUD for tasks (create, read, update) and comments, plus full hierarchy listing and search. Minor gaps include no delete task/comment and no update/list operations for folders/lists, but these are workable and don't hinder the primary workflows.

Resources