huly-mcp-selfhost

create_todo

Create a to-do in a Huly workspace and optionally attach it to an issue, with title, due date, priority, and Markdown description.

Instructions

Create a to-do, optionally on an issue

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_todo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issue`	No	Issue id to attach the to-do to
`title`	Yes
`dueDate`	No	ISO date
`priority`	No		NoPriority
`workspace`	Yes
`description`	No	Markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds no behavioral context of its own. It does not say what the created to-do returns, whether priority defaults apply, or that workspace must resolve to an existing workspace. For a mutation tool the description is essentially a restatement of the name.

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?

A single short sentence with the type and optional modifier front-loaded and no filler wording. It is concise, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than well-edited density.

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?

A six-parameter creation tool with no output schema, half its parameters undocumented, and thin annotations needs the description to carry more weight than this. An agent gets no information about the returned object, the meaning of the priority default, or how workspace and description content are expected to be supplied.

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?

Six parameters with only 50% schema description coverage; title, workspace and description fields have no schema descriptions at all. The description only echoes that issue is optional, which the schema's required list already communicates, so it compensates for none of the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a to-do") plus a scoping detail ("optionally on an issue"), which separates it from delete_todo, update_todo and schedule_todo by verb alone. It stops short of naming any sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"Optionally on an issue" implies the issue parameter is optional and that issue-less to-dos are valid, which is the only contextual hint given. There is no guidance on when to use this versus schedule_todo for dated items or update_todo afterwards, and no prerequisites about the workspace.

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

Deploy Server