Create a new task in a Kaneo project by providing the project ID, title, description, priority, and status column. Use markdown for task details.
Create a new task in a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Task title | |
| status | Yes | Column slug (e.g., "to-do", "in-progress", "done") | |
| priority | Yes | Task priority | |
| projectId | Yes | Project ID | |
| description | Yes | Task description (markdown supported) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It says the tool creates a new task, but says nothing about side effects, return values, validation requirements, or whether the project must already exist. This is a minimal disclosure with no added behavioral context beyond the operation itself.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the core operation ('Create a new task') and the scope ('in a project'). Every word earns its place in the description.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is overly sparse. It does not explain what happens after creation (e.g., whether the created task is returned, how errors surface), nor does it mention the need for an existing projectId or how to find one. The schema covers inputs, but behavioral and sequencing context is 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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents all five parameters, including markdown support for description and the status column slug format. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.
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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new task in a project') with no ambiguity. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_task, delete_task, and especially create_subtask, which is the only other creation tool and targets a different resource (subtask).
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?
The description implies the obvious use case — creating a task — but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any exclusion such as 'for subtasks use create_subtask'. Sibling names make the purpose inferable, but the text itself does not state prerequisites like needing to obtain projectId via list_projects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.