Add a task to a specific board column with optional priority to organize your todo list.
Create a task in a specific board column.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| boardId | Yes | ||
| columnId | Yes | ||
| priority | No | medium |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It confirms a write operation but says nothing about required permissions, whether the board and column must pre-exist, default field values, or what the created task includes. For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, this is a notable gap.
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 key qualifier front-loaded. No wasted words, though it is arguably too terse given the missing details.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and 4 parameters – the description is incomplete for a creation tool. An agent lacks enough detail on prerequisites (existing board/column), priority handling, and return value.
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%, so the schema documents nothing beyond types and constraints. The description mentions only 'board column' and 'task title' implicitly; it says nothing about the priority parameter (enum with default), nor clarifies the required identifiers. It does not compensate for the coverage 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?
States a specific verb (create) and resource (task), and adds scoping detail ('in a specific board column'). This distinguishes it reasonably from create_subtask, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative.
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 exclusions, no mention of alternatives like create_subtask for nested tasks. The agent must infer context from the name and siblings alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.