recall-kit

project_add

Add blockers, next steps, or follow-ups to a project with owner and due date so project status carries across sessions.

Instructions

Add an item to a project. kind: blocker | next_step | followup (follow-ups need due=YYYY-MM-DD).

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "project_add"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`due`	No
`kind`	Yes
`slug`	Yes
`text`	Yes
`owner`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the allowed kind values and the due-date dependency for followups, but says nothing about mutation effects, permissions, duplicate handling, or what 'item' means. For an unannotated write tool this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Two compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the constraint immediately after. Every clause carries information; only the slightly terse parenthetical phrasing costs it a point.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with no annotations, five parameters, and three of them (slug, text, owner) undocumented anywhere, the definition is not quite complete enough for an agent to call it confidently without guessing at argument meanings.

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 0% and there are five parameters. The description compensates for the most important one by enumerating kind values (the schema has no enum) and by giving a due format and conditional requirement. However, slug, text, and owner receive no explanation at all, so compensation is only partial.

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 and resource: 'Add an item to a project.' An agent can tell it is a creation tool for project items, though it does not distinguish it from siblings like project_update or project_decide.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, but the description does encode a concrete usage rule: kind must be one of blocker/next_step/followup, and followups require due. That conditional is real invocation guidance, even though routing against sibling tools is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server