gambot_create_taskCreate a task in the CRM, optionally linking it to a contact via phone number, with title, due date, priority, and description.
Create a task (optionally linked to a contact via contactPhone).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| dueDate | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| contactPhone | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create a task', implying a mutable action, but omits any side effects, permission requirements, idempotency behavior, response format, or error handling. This is a significant 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the main action and optional link. While very short, it is appropriately sized for the primary purpose, though it could add a bit more context without losing conciseness.
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?
Given 5 parameters, one enum, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It lacks details on required fields, date formats, priority values, and what the tool returns. An agent would have insufficient information to call this tool correctly. The absence of annotations further undermines completeness.
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 0%, and the description only clarifies the optional contactPhone linkage. It does not explain the meaning or format of title, dueDate, priority, or description. The schema lists types but lacks descriptions, so the brief mention of contactPhone adds minimal value without compensating for the other parameters.
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 clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'task', and adds a distinguishing detail about optional contact linking via contactPhone. This is specific enough to differentiate from siblings like update_task or list_tasks, and is not a tautology.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name implies creation, but there is no mention of situations where this should be preferred over update_task or any prerequisites. The usage context is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.