Maito MCP Server

Official

by maito-app

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

create_card

Create a task card in a Maito workspace column or board with title, optional priority, deadline, and tags.

Instructions

Create a task card. Either columnId (precise) or boardId (uses first column). Workspace inherited from column/board.

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_card"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes
`isEpic`	No
`tagIds`	No
`boardId`	No
`columnId`	No
`deadline`	No	Epoch ms
`priority`	No
`description`	No
`parentCardId`	No
`scheduledFor`	No	Epoch ms

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the fallback behavior of boardId and workspace inheritance, but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible. It is adequate but not thorough.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The key action and the most important parameter nuance are front-loaded.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits many behavioral and semantic details (e.g., effect of isEpic, tagIds, return value). It is too sparse for a complex creation tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is low (20%), but the description clarifies the crucial relationship between boardId and columnId. The other 8 parameters are not explained beyond their schema names and types, leaving ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb 'create' and resource 'task card' are stated. The description distinguishes the tool from siblings like archive_card or update_card by specifying the action of creating. The detail about columnId vs boardId adds precision.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicit guidance on when to use columnId (precise placement) versus boardId (uses first column) is provided. It also mentions workspace inheritance. However, it does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.

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