Create a new action in BoondManager, specifying name, status, due date, priority, project, assignee, and description to track tasks.
Create a new action
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Action name | |
| status | No | Action status | open |
| dueDate | No | Due date (ISO 8601 format) | |
| priority | No | Action priority | |
| projectId | No | Project ID | |
| assignedTo | No | User ID to assign action to | |
| description | No | Action description |
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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a new action,' which conveys a mutating create operation but not side effects, permissions, required context, or what happens on success or failure. There is no contradiction with annotations because none exist.
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 clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a straightforward create tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 create tool with complete schema coverage, the description is minimally viable: it names the operation and resource, and the schema covers invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, there is no information about the returned object, error behavior, or any business-specific constraints tied to creating an action.
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?
The input schema already describes all seven parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new action.' This identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling create tools for other resources like candidates, contracts, or invoices. It does not explain what an 'action' represents in the domain, so it stops short of a 5.
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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'action' imply this tool is for creating a new action, and the schema reinforces that only 'name' is required. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this over boond_actions_update, boond_actions_search, or how this create differs from other resource creates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.