Skip to main content
Glama
cristip73

MCP Server for Asana

by cristip73

asana_create_task_story

Add comments or updates to Asana tasks to track progress and communicate with team members.

Instructions

Create a comment or story on a task

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYesThe task ID to add the story to
textYesThe text content of the story/comment
opt_fieldsNoComma-separated list of optional fields to include

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler switch case that processes the CallToolRequest for asana_create_task_story by extracting parameters and delegating to AsanaClientWrapper.createTaskStory
    case "asana_create_task_story": {
      const { task_id, text, ...opts } = args;
      const response = await asanaClient.createTaskStory(task_id, text, opts);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }],
      };
    }
  • Tool schema definition specifying input parameters (task_id, text, opt_fields) and description for validation in MCP
    export const createTaskStoryTool: Tool = {
      name: "asana_create_task_story",
      description: "Create a comment or story on a task",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          task_id: {
            type: "string",
            description: "The task ID to add the story to"
          },
          text: {
            type: "string",
            description: "The text content of the story/comment"
          },
          opt_fields: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Comma-separated list of optional fields to include"
          }
        },
        required: ["task_id", "text"]
      }
    };
  • The tool is imported from story-tools.ts and registered in the exported tools array used by the MCP server
    addFollowersToTaskTool,
    getStoriesForTaskTool,
    createTaskStoryTool,
    getTeamsForUserTool,
  • AsanaClientWrapper method that performs the actual API call to create a story/comment on a task via Asana StoriesApi
    async createTaskStory(taskId: string, text: string, opts: any = {}) {
      const options = opts.opt_fields ? opts : {};
      const body = {
        data: {
          text: text
        }
      };
      const response = await this.stories.createStoryForTask(body, taskId, options);
      return response.data;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions creation but doesn't disclose if this requires specific permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, nor does it explain return values. For this complexity, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'text' is for the story/comment content, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and target ('a comment or story on a task'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'asana_create_task' (creates tasks) or 'asana_get_task_stories' (reads stories). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate between 'comment' and 'story' or clarify if they're synonymous in Asana's context.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task), compare to 'asana_update_task' for task modifications, or reference sibling 'asana_get_task_stories' for reading stories. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cristip73/mcp-server-asana'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server