OmniFocus MCP Plus

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Add project

add_project

Create a new project in OmniFocus, specifying name, due date, tags, folder, and more. Handles idempotent creation to avoid duplicates.

Instructions

Add a new project to OmniFocus

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The name of the project
`note`	No	Additional notes for the project
`tags`	No	Tags to assign to the project
`tagIds`	No	Exact tag IDs; combine with names/paths in tags. Unknown IDs fail before any write.
`dueDate`	No	Due date, ISO 8601 (e.g., 2026-03-05T09:00:00-06:00). A bare YYYY-MM-DD is treated as local midnight on that calendar day.
`flagged`	No	Whether the project is flagged or not
`deferDate`	No	Defer date, ISO 8601 (e.g., 2026-03-05T09:00:00-06:00). A bare YYYY-MM-DD is treated as local midnight on that calendar day.
`folderName`	No	Name or ID of the folder to add the project to (adds at root if omitted). A name matching more than one folder is rejected — pass the folder ID instead.
`sequential`	No	Whether tasks in the project should be sequential (default: false)
`plannedDate`	No	Planned date, ISO 8601 (e.g., 2026-03-05T09:00:00-06:00). A bare YYYY-MM-DD is treated as local midnight on that calendar day.
`idempotencyKey`	No	Stable request key for this create. Reuse identical arguments to replay its result across clients; an uncertain earlier attempt is never repeated.
`estimatedMinutes`	No	Estimated time to complete the project, in minutes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`meta`	No
`tool`	Yes
`success`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already state readOnly=false and destructive=false, and the description merely says 'Add', which is consistent but adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations. It does not disclose idempotency behavior, failure semantics for invalid tag IDs or ambiguous folder names, or what happens after creation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant wording and is easy to parse. It is concise but provides no additional structure or high-level context beyond the bare purpose.

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?

Given the tool has 12 parameters and non-trivial behavior around folder resolution, tag IDs, and idempotency, the one-sentence description alone is not complete. However, the rich parameter schema and presence of an output schema compensate for most invocation details, leaving only high-level usage and behavioral guidance gaps.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so all 12 parameters are already documented in detail. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but because the schema fully covers parameter semantics, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('project') and names the target system ('OmniFocus'), clearly identifying what the tool does. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_omnifocus_task, create_folder, or create_tag, which involve different resources.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. There is no discussion of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_omnifocus_task for tasks or convert_task_to_project, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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

Deploy Server