gtasks_create_task_listCreate a new Google Tasks list by providing a title, with optional markdown or JSON response output for readable or structured results.
Create a new Google Tasks list. Example: "create a list called Groceries".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Name of the new list | |
| response_format | No | 'markdown' for readable text, 'json' for structured data | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation and safety profile are covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about duplicate-name handling, the 1024-character title limit, whether the list is created in the authenticated user's account, or what happens on failure.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with zero filler. The example is brief and reinforces the required parameter, though it occupies space without adding much the schema does not already say.
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 simple two-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits what the tool returns (no output schema exists) and any note about duplicate or conflicting list names, which an agent would benefit from knowing before invoking a non-idempotent create.
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 100%, including constraints (minLength 1, maxLength 1024) and the response_format enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The example clarifies that 'title' is a human-readable list name, which is a small but real addition. Baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("Create a new Google Tasks list"), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as gtasks_list_task_lists and gtasks_delete_task_list. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the create-vs-list-vs-delete contrast is unambiguous from the verb alone.
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 example phrase "create a list called Groceries" implicitly signals when to use it, but there is no statement about when not to use it, no mention of checking for existing lists first, and no reference to alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.