Skip to main content
Glama
nabheet

google-services-mcp

by nabheet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create task

google_tasks_create

Create Google Tasks items with optional notes, due dates, or parent task IDs to add subtasks. Use it to capture to-dos and organize tasks in a chosen list or account.

Instructions

Create a task, optionally with notes, due date, or as a subtask.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dueNoDue date (RFC3339, e.g. 2026-08-15T17:00:00Z).
notesNo
titleYesTask title.
accountNoAccount nickname to use.
tasklistIdNoTask list ID (default @default).
parentTaskIdNoParent task ID to create a subtask.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.60
    • addedInput schema / properties / parentTaskId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Parent task ID to create a subtask.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.30
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutating write but says nothing about required scopes/auth, what happens if tasklistId is omitted (the schema mentions @default but the description does not), error behavior, or idempotency.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause maps to a real capability of the tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It omits side effects, auth requirements, and default behavior for the task list, which an agent would need to invoke reliably.

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 description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents due (RFC3339), tasklistId (@default), parentTaskId, and account. The description only echoes notes/due/parentTaskId at a high level and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (task) and names the optional facets (notes, due date, subtask). It does not distinguish itself from sibling google_tasks_create_list, which creates a list rather than a task, so it falls short of the 5 benchmark.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. an existing tasklist), and no routing to alternatives such as google_tasks_update or google_tasks_complete. The agent gets no help choosing between this and its siblings.

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