Create a new task in Things 3 by specifying a title, and optionally set due date, tags, notes, and project.
Create a task through Things' supported AppleScript interface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| when | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| project_id | 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Create a task') but provides no details on side effects, permissions, reversibility, or error behavior. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 single sentence is free of fluff and front-loads the purpose, but it is too sparse—it carries only the verb+resource and no additional value. It is not over-concise to the point of obscuring purpose, but it under-delivers on content.
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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not referenced, a one-sentence description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine required parameter formats, return values, or any special behaviors. This falls far short of being complete for a task-creation tool.
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%, so the description must compensate for the 5 parameters. It mentions none of the parameters (title, when, notes, tags, project_id), leaving their purpose and formatting entirely undefined.
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', specifying it through Things' AppleScript interface. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_todos, update_todo, and search_todos without ambiguity.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are update_todo and update_checklist siblings, but the description does not mention conditions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.