Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
taskpaper-mcp-server

taskpaper-mcp-server

by kekincai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Add TaskPaper Task

taskpaper_add_task

Add a task to the current TaskPaper document, optionally targeting a specific project, with due dates, tags, and other metadata. Automatically create projects if needed.

Instructions

Add a task to the root or a named project in the front TaskPaper document.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "taskpaper_add_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dueNo
fileNo
tagsNo
textYes
startNo
appendNo
projectNo
createProjectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'front document' but omits effects on existing projects, error handling, or whether it creates projects if missing. Minimal transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, efficient in length, but lacks structured information. It is not front-loaded with critical details; the compactness sacrifices completeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only a generic statement. It fails to cover parameter interactions, return values, or errors, leaving major gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the 8 parameters. It does not explain any parameter like 'due', 'tags', or 'createProject', leaving the agent with no semantic guidance.

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 clearly states the verb 'add' and the resource 'task to the front TaskPaper document', and distinguishes from sibling tools like archive or complete. It specifies scope ('root or a named project'), adding precision.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as taskpaper_complete_task or taskpaper_archive_done. No prerequisites or conditions provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools