Add a task with a title, plus optional due date, project, tags, and notes to keep the task store organized.
Add a task. due is ISO date/datetime (local). project is a hyperpanes project id or name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| due | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| project | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the operation adds a task and clarifies parameter formats, but it does not state side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, error behavior, or what happens after creation. This is a meaningful gap for a mutating tool.
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 two sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the additional sentence adds directly useful parameter context. Every word earns its place.
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?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is thin for a tool with five parameters and no annotations. It omits usage guidance, behavioral effects, and semantics for some parameters. An agent would still need to guess about expected input formats for tags and notes and what to do after the call.
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. It usefully explains that due is an ISO date/datetime in local time and that project accepts a hyperpanes id or name. However, tags, notes, and title are left to inference from their schema titles, so the compensation is only partial.
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, 'Add a task,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hearthsmith_tasks_done, hearthsmith_tasks_list, hearthsmith_tasks_block, and hearthsmith_tasks_snooze. The extra details about due and project reinforce what this tool is for.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The creation purpose is implied by the verb 'Add,' but the agent is given no explicit decision context relative to the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.