Creates a new task in a project, specifying title, status, priority, due date, assignee, and description to organize work and track progress.
Create a new task in the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Task title | |
| status | No | Initial status (default: todo) | |
| dueDate | No | Due date (ISO 8601 format) | |
| priority | No | Priority level (low, medium, high, critical) | |
| assigneeId | No | User ID to assign task to | |
| description | No | Task description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, permissions, and outcomes. It merely says 'create a new task' without mentioning whether it modifies existing data, what defaults are applied, what happens on duplicate titles, or what success/error responses look like.
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 description is a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the essential purpose.
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?
The tool is simple and has no output schema or nested objects, but the description does not mention return values, validation rules, or any post-creation behavior. It is minimally adequate but leaves some contextual gaps.
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?
All six parameters have schema descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, but since the schema is complete, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new task in the project'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_task, start_work_on_task, and create_pull_request.
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 description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It relies entirely on the name and general context, so an agent has no stated criteria for choosing create_task over update_task or start_work_on_task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.