memora

memory_create_todo

Create a new TODO task memory with status, priority, category, and project, auto-tagged for organization.

Instructions

Create a new TODO/task memory.

Args: content: Description of the task status: Task status - "open" (default) or "closed" closed_reason: If closed, the reason - "complete" or "not_planned" priority: Task priority - "high", "medium" (default), "low" category: Task category (e.g., "cloud-backend", "graph-visualization", "docs") project: Optional project the task belongs to; its tag becomes "/todos", or bare "todos" without a project

Returns: Created TODO memory with auto-assigned tag "/todos" or "todos"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`status`	No	open
`content`	Yes
`project`	No
`category`	No
`priority`	No	medium
`closed_reason`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.6Sep 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / project

Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.2.28May 3, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / category / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / category / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / closed_reason / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / closed_reason / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
First observedv0.1.0Apr 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it discloses the key non-obvious behavior: auto-assigned tags ('<project>/todos' or 'todos') and the conditional closed_reason for closed tasks. No contradiction with annotations exists since none are provided.

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 one-line summary plus tight Args/Returns blocks; every line documents a parameter or behavior that the schema leaves unspecified. The project line wraps awkwardly across two lines, but there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a straightforward create operation, the description covers every parameter, default, conditional dependency (closed_reason tied to status), return value, and the tag side-effect. Minor edge cases (e.g., closed_reason supplied while status is 'open') go unaddressed, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides zero description coverage, so the description must fully compensate — and it does, documenting all six parameters with allowed values ('open'/'closed', 'complete'/'not_planned', 'high'/'medium'/'low'), defaults, and the project-to-tag relationship. This is a textbook example of compensating for a bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Create a new TODO/task memory" names a specific verb (create) and a distinct resource (TODO/task memory), which separates it from siblings like memory_create_issue and memory_create_section. The summary line is unambiguous about what the tool produces.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description is written in API-reference style (Args/Returns) and never addresses tool selection. An agent among 40+ siblings gets no explicit signal about when todos are preferred over issues or generic memories, leaving selection to inference from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server