twenty_create_taskCreate a task. title is required. Twenty REST: POST /rest/tasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | Task body / description. | |
| dueAt | No | Due date/time (ISO 8601). | |
| extra | No | Passthrough object of additional/custom fields merged into the request body verbatim. | |
| title | Yes | The task title (required). | |
| status | No | Task status — e.g. TODO, IN_PROGRESS, DONE. | |
| assigneeId | No | Id of the workspace member assigned to the task. |
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?
Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a mutation. The description adds only the REST endpoint, which is implementation detail rather than behavioral context such as what is created, return format, or permissions. No additional transparency beyond the annotation is provided.
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 exceptionally concise: a single sentence with the core action plus a REST endpoint hint. No word is wasted, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of six parameters including a nested 'extra' passthrough, the description is too terse. It does not explain what the tool returns, how 'extra' should be used, or any other operational context necessary for complete understanding.
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 has 100% description coverage with meaningful per-parameter descriptions. The description's note that 'title is required' is redundant with the schema's required field and adds no extra semantic value. The baseline of 3 applies because schema carries the parameter details.
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 clearly states 'Create a task' with a specific verb and resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_company or create_note. It also provides the underlying REST endpoint for clarity.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is the implied context from the tool name and the required 'title' field.
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.
Each tool follows a clear action-entity pattern, so there is no overlap; even the metadata listing is distinct from record operations. No two tools could be confused.
All tools use the twenty_<verb>_<entity> convention with verbs create/get/list/update, in lowercase snake_case. Naming is perfectly consistent across the set.
20 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range but justified by five core entities each needing create/get/list/update. However, the count feels a bit heavy, especially without delete tools.
The server covers create, read, and list for all entities, and update for most, but lacks delete operations entirely and does not support updating notes. These are notable gaps in full lifecycle management.