lendlord-mcp

Create task

create_task

Add a custom task with a due date, optionally tied to a property, to track landlord to-dos and deadlines.

Instructions

Add a custom task with a due date, optionally tied to a property.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "dueDate": "<dueDate>"
    },
    "name": "create_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	No	Set true once the user has approved writes for this session
`dueDate`	Yes
`subject`	Yes
`propertyId`	No
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description omits the confirm-gating workflow required by the schema and says nothing about permissions, session approval, or side effects, which is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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 single efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and its two distinguishing attributes. It is appropriately short, though the brevity contributes to the missing guidance elsewhere.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with 20% schema coverage, no output schema, and a required write-confirmation flow, the description is inadequate. It should explain the confirm requirement and clarify the subject/description fields to let an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'confirm' is documented in the schema), so the description must carry the load. It explains dueDate and propertyId implicitly, but leaves subject, description, and the critical confirm flag unexplained, leaving three of five parameters semantically unclear.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Add a custom task') and states two key attributes (due date required, optional property link). It clearly distinguishes the create operation from siblings like update_task and list_tasks, though it does not explicitly reference them.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_task or create_maintenance_report, and it omits a crucial precondition: the 'confirm' parameter must be set true once the user approves writes. No alternative routing or exclusions are offered.

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