create_taskSchedule new tasks in Copper CRM. Assign follow-ups to specific people, companies, leads, or opportunities and set priority and due dates for efficient workflow management.
Create a task, optionally linked to a person, company, lead or opportunity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| details | No | ||
| due_date | No | ISO 8601 date or datetime | |
| priority | No | ||
| related_id | No | ||
| assignee_id | No | ||
| related_type | No | ||
| reminder_date | No | ISO 8601 datetime |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't mention required fields, whether reminders/assignments trigger notifications, or side effects of linking to other records.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and the optional linking qualifier trailing. Nothing is wasted, though brevity here reflects under-specification rather than discipline.
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?
A 9-parameter mutation tool with 22% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations covering field-level behavior needs far more explanation. The description leaves the agent guessing about most inputs and about what the created task looks like on return.
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 coverage is only 22%, so the description must compensate, but it only gestures at the related_id/related_type pair (and even then lists four of five enum values). It says nothing about the required name, nor tags, details, due_date, priority, assignee_id or reminder_date.
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?
Clear verb+resource ('Create a task') plus the linking scope, so the agent knows what it produces. It does not differentiate from siblings like create_opportunity or search_tasks, and it omits 'project' from the list of linkable types even though the schema's related_type enum includes it.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as search_tasks (to check for duplicates) or complete_task. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.