Skip to main content
Glama
kjduling

kanbn-mcp

by kjduling
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

kanbn_create_task

Create a task on a Kanbn board with a required name and optional column, assignee, comments, subtasks, relations, and description.

Instructions

Create a new task on the Kanbn board. The 'name' field is required; all other fields are optional.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesTask title (required)
pathNoPath to the project root directory
columnNoTarget column for the new task (optional; defaults to the board's first column)
assignedNoAssignee
commentsNo
subTasksNo
taskDataNoKanbn task metadata object
relationsNoTask relations: an array of {task, type} edges (e.g. {task: 'model', type: 'depends-on'}). WARNING: on edit this replaces the WHOLE relations collection — supply the full array, or use kanbn_add_relation / kanbn_remove_relation for merges.
descriptionNoTask detailed description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / relations
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Task relations: an array of {task, type} edges (e.g. {task: 'model', type: 'depends-on'}). WARNING: on edit this replaces the WHOLE relations collection — supply the full array, or use kanbn_add_relation / kanbn_remove_relation for merges.",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "task": {
+        "description": "Target task ID the relation points to",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": {
+        "description": "Relation type, e.g. 'depends-on' or 'blocks' (normalised to kebab-case)",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this creates a task (a mutating operation), but gives no detail on side effects, return values, board path requirements, or validation behavior. It does not contradict any annotations since none exist, but a creation tool with zero annotation coverage should disclose more than this.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the primary purpose before the requirement note. Efficient and scannable. It loses a point only because the brevity approaches under-specification given the tool's 9 parameters.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, nested objects (comments, subTasks, relations), no output schema, and a complex sibling set, this description is thin. It omits return value expectations, behavior on missing board, and the destructive relations-replacement caveat (which only lives in the schema, not the description). The rich schema carries most of the load, but the description leaves an agent without key execution context.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 78%, just below the high threshold, so the description should compensate somewhat. It adds nothing about parameters beyond restating that 'name' is required — information already present in the schema's 'required' array. No new meaning is added for path, column, relations, or nested objects.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Create a new task on the Kanbn board') that clearly distinguishes creation from the edit/delete/archive siblings. It correctly identifies the required field. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from adjacent creation-ish tools like kanbn_add_untracked_task or kanbn_add_task_to_board, which could confuse an agent deciding between creation pathways.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states the required field and that all others are optional, giving some usage context. But it offers no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives — no guidance to prefer kanbn_edit_task for modifications or kanbn_add_untracked_task for untracked tasks. Usage is implied by the name rather than stated.

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