Nexxupp MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

nws_create_task

Create a task in an NWS station by providing a station ID and title, with optional due date, page, and status to organize work.

Instructions

Create a task in an NWS station.

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": {
      "stationId": "<stationId>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "nws_create_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dueAt`	No	Due date as YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS
`title`	Yes
`pageId`	No
`status`	No
`stationId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a mutation, but the description says nothing about required permissions, whether the call is idempotent, what defaults apply to omitted fields like status or dueAt, or what identifier is returned on success.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler is efficient and easy to parse. Its brevity borders on under-specification rather than being bloated, so it earns credit for structure without being maximally useful.

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?

For a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 20% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the needed detail on side effects, parameter meaning, and returned values.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (just dueAt), and the description mentions no parameters at all. With five parameters, two required, and an enum on status, the description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented schema fields.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a task') plus its scope ('in an NWS station'), which clearly separates it from siblings like nws_create_chart. It stops short of differentiating itself from the other NWS creation/mutation tools beyond the resource noun.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nws_create_chart or nws_apply_template_blocks, nor any stated prerequisites. An agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.

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