Add a task to a specified project, optionally targeting a board column; tasks can belong to multiple projects.
Put a task into a project (a task can live in several). Optionally target a board column there.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| board_column_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Input schema / properties / board_column_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / board_column_id / typeRemoved value: -[
- "integer",
- "null"
-]v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait (a task can belong to multiple projects, so this is additive and not destructive to other links), but says nothing about permissions, idempotency when the task is already in the project, validation of board_column_id, or error behavior for a 3-parameter mutation.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause carries information (the multi-project semantics and the optional column targeting). No filler.
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?
For a small 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential action but leaves gaps: it does not say what happens if the task is already in the project, whether the column must belong to the target project's board, or what a failure looks like. Adequate but incomplete.
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 0% and there are three parameters, so the description must compensate. It maps all three loosely (task, project, optional board column) and marks board_column_id as optional and project-scoped, but adds no type, format, or required/optional precision beyond that.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Put a task into a project') and the parenthetical '(a task can live in several)' clarifies it is an additive link rather than a move, distinguishing it from weeek_move_task and weeek_remove_task_from_project. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The phrase 'Optionally target a board column there' implies when to supply board_column_id, and the additive framing implies when to use this over a move. There is no explicit when-not guidance or prerequisite (e.g., project must exist, task must exist, column must belong to that board), so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.