OmniFocus MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Add project

add_project

Create an OmniFocus project with optional folder placement, initial tasks, tags, due dates, and status. Set up new projects quickly by specifying all details in a single action.

Instructions

Create a project, optionally inside a folder and with an initial task list.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Project name.
`note`	No
`tags`	No
`tasks`	No	Optional top-level tasks to create inside the project.
`status`	No
`flagged`	No
`tag_ids`	No
`due_date`	No
`folder_id`	No
`singleton`	No	If true, this is a single-action list.
`defer_date`	No
`sequential`	No	If true, tasks form a dependency chain.
`folder_name`	No
`planned_date`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only write operation, lowering the burden. The description adds that the tool can also create an initial task list and place the project in a folder, which is useful side-effect context. It does not cover failure modes or permission requirements, but the annotation coverage provides a baseline.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and readable, though the brevity contributes to the lack of detail 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?

With 14 parameters and low schema coverage, one sentence is not enough for an agent to invoke this tool confidently. It covers the essential purpose but omits most parameter semantics and sibling differentiation; the presence of an output schema does not make up for the input-side gaps.

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 29%, and the description only clarifies the folder and initial-task-list aspects. The other 10+ parameters (note, tags, status, due_date, etc.) are left without added meaning, so the description does not compensate for the sparse schema.

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 states a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('project') with two distinguishing capabilities: optional folder placement and an initial task list. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like create_project_from_outline, but the core object is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_project_from_outline or add_task. The optional folder/task-list hint implies some use cases, but there are no exclusions or decision rules to help an agent choose correctly.

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