Add tasks to Microsoft To Do lists with optional notes, due dates, reminders, steps, and importance.
Create a task, optionally with a note, due date, reminder and steps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | Yes | List display name (case-insensitive) or list id | |
| note | No | Plain-text note | |
| steps | No | Step (subtask) texts, in order | |
| title | Yes | ||
| due_date | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| reminder | No | YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM, local time | |
| important | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so a write operation is already expected, and the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not mention side effects, required fields, how the task is associated to the list, or what response is returned. There is no contradiction with the annotations, but the description carries little behavioral weight.
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 a single concise sentence with the primary action front-loaded. It contains no filler, though the brevity means some useful context is sacrificed.
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?
With seven parameters, two required, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It fails to mention required parameters, the important flag, prerequisites, or return behavior, leaving the agent to infer critical information from the schema.
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?
The description mentions four optional parameters (note, due_date, reminder, steps), but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It omits 'important', a parameter lacking a schema description, and does not clarify the required list and title parameters, leaving a real semantic gap.
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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'task' and lists the key optional fields (note, due date, reminder, steps), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_list, but the 'task' resource makes the target unambiguous.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_task or add_step. There are no stated prerequisites, such as the requirement that list and title are mandatory or that the target list must already exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.