outpost

task_add

Add tasks to Microsoft To Do by specifying title, due date, list, and priority. Organize your to-do items efficiently.

Instructions

Add a new task to Microsoft To Do.

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "task_add"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes	Task title
`due`	No	Due date — natural language ('tomorrow', 'next friday') or ISO ('2026-03-15')
`list_name`	No	Task list name (uses default list if omitted)
`priority`	No	low, normal, or high	normal

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, authentication needs). As a mutation tool, more transparency is expected.

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?

Single sentence front-loads the core action. Efficient but slightly under-specified; could add context without harming conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Minimal description despite 4 parameters and output schema. No mention of return value or behavior with optional params like list_name.

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 100% and parameter descriptions are detailed. Tool description adds no additional meaning beyond schema, so score is baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states action ('Add a new task') and system ('Microsoft To Do'), distinguishing from sibling tools like task_complete or task_delete. However, lacks explicit mention of fields or scope.

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 guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., task_update). No context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid list name.

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