Add tasks to OmniFocus with details like notes, due dates, and flags. Optionally assign to a project or keep in inbox.
Create a new task in OmniFocus. Detected version: standard
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Task name (required) | |
| note | No | Task note/description | |
| dueDate | No | Due date in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| flagged | No | Mark task as flagged | |
| project | No | Project name to add task to (optional, defaults to inbox) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only says 'Create a new task in OmniFocus.' It does not describe return values, side effects, permissions, failure modes, or behavior when optional fields like project are omitted. The 'Detected version: standard' note adds operational context but no behavioral transparency.
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 short, front-loaded, and free of fluff. The 'Detected version: standard' sentence is somewhat expendable, but it is not misleading and does not significantly harm the conciseness.
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 simple create-task operation, the schema plus clear purpose provide enough to invoke the tool correctly. However, the lack of any return-value or post-condition information, combined with no annotations and no output schema, leaves some behavioral context missing.
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 the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific action ('Create') on a specific resource ('a new task in OmniFocus'), which unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like omnifocus_get_tasks, omnifocus_update_task, and omnifocus_complete_task.
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?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the creation semantics are strongly implied by the tool name and the clear action/resource phrasing. No misleading or contradictory guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.