Add a phase to an Autotask project by specifying project ID, title, dates, description, and estimated hours.
Create a new phase in an Autotask project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Phase title | |
| dueDate | No | Phase due date (ISO format) | |
| projectID | Yes | Project ID for the phase | |
| startDate | No | Phase start date (ISO format) | |
| description | No | Phase description | |
| estimatedHours | No | Estimated hours for the phase |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the basic creation action without disclosing behavioral traits like side effects, permission requirements, validation behavior, or what happens on success/failure.
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 sentence, achieving conciseness but lacking structure. It front-loads the core action but omits important details that could fit without length.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and the creation nature, the description should explain return values (e.g., new phase ID) or requirements (e.g., project must exist). It is incomplete for effective agent decision-making.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the tool's purpose.
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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('phase') in an Autotask project. It is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like autotask_list_phases, though no explicit differentiation is provided.
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 (e.g., autotask_create_task). No context about prerequisites, such as requiring an existing project, or when to use it over other phase-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.