create_cardAdd a new card to any Planka list, specifying its name, description, due date, and position for organized task management.
Create a new card in a list. dueDate should be ISO 8601 format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| listId | Yes | ||
| dueDate | No | ||
| position | No | ||
| description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic creation action and a date format requirement, without mentioning side effects, validation behavior, permissions, or response characteristics.
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 brief and front-loaded, with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and the second adds a useful format constraint, though the first sentence partly restates the tool name.
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?
With five parameters, zero schema descriptions, and many closely related siblings, the description is not sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool with correct semantics. It lacks guidance on sibling selection, most parameter meaning, and important behavioral details.
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 adds meaning for dueDate by requiring ISO 8601 format. Parameters like listId, name, position, and description receive no explanation; the position default of 65536 is left unexplained.
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 and resource: create a new card in a list. It is clear enough to distinguish from card mutations like move_card or update_card, though it does not explicitly contrast with create_card_with_tasks.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_card_with_tasks, duplicate_card, or move_card. The only extra instruction is the ISO 8601 format requirement for dueDate, which is parameter guidance rather than usage selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.