Add multiple tasks or projects in a single call to reduce overhead when creating two or more OmniFocus items, including hierarchy, dates, tags, and project/folder placement.
PREFERRED: Add multiple tasks/projects in ONE call. 9x faster than individual add_omnifocus_task calls. Always use this for 2+ items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Array of items (tasks or projects) to add |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds a useful performance claim (9x faster) but says nothing about partial-failure semantics, atomicity, ordering, or what is returned — critical for a batch mutation tool. The only failure-behavior detail available lives in the schema's folderName description, not here.
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?
Three short sentences with the preferred status and batch scope front-loaded. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
There is no output schema or annotation coverage, so the description should at least indicate what a call returns (created IDs, per-item results) and how failures are reported. It omits both, leaving the agent to discover batch-result semantics empirically.
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 the tempId/parentTempId linking mechanism and per-field guidance, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Add multiple tasks/projects') and explicitly scopes it to batch operation in one call, which cleanly separates it from the single-item sibling add_omnifocus_task.
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?
Gives an explicit decision threshold ('Always use this for 2+ items') and names the alternative (individual add_omnifocus_task calls), so an agent can choose between batch and single-item paths without inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.