JobNimbus MCP Server

by drummouse

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

jn_create_task

Create a task in JobNimbus linked to a contact or job. Optionally set a due date, assignee, or note.

Instructions

Create a task in JobNimbus linked to a contact or job.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "related_jnid": "<related_jnid>",
      "related_type": "<related_type>"
    },
    "name": "jn_create_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`title`	Yes
`due_date`	No	Unix timestamp
`assigned_to`	No	Assignee email
`related_jnid`	Yes	jnid of the related contact or job
`related_type`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention what happens on successful creation, error conditions, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. It could be expanded slightly to cover key details without becoming wordy.

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 6 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too terse. It does not explain the expected behavior, return value, or relationship between fields like title and note.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The single sentence does not explain parameter relationships, default values, or how to use optional fields like note.

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?

The description clearly states the action 'Create a task' and specifies the linkage to a contact or job, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like jn_create_contact and jn_create_job.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'linked to a contact or job,' but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives.

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