Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
things3-mcp

things3-mcp

by snellingio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_task

Add a task to your Things 3 list, optionally assigning it to a project, with scheduling and notes.

Instructions

Create a task, optionally in a Things project.

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": "create_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
whenNoOptional Things schedule such as today, tomorrow, or YYYY-MM-DD.
notesNoOptional task notes.
titleYesTask title.
project_idNoOptional ID returned by list_projects.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral effects. It only says 'create a task' and gives no details about prerequisites, side effects, return values, or error conditions. For a mutation operation, this is insufficient.

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 sentence with no wasted words, making it very concise and front-loaded. However, it is almost too sparse, lacking any supporting context that would make it more useful.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits when to use the tool, how to obtain a project_id, what happens on success or failure, and any return value. The schema helps but the description doesn't provide enough surrounding context for an agent to use it confidently.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The description adds minimal value by mentioning optional project membership, but it doesn't elaborate on parameter relationships or expected formats beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool creates a task, with an optional project context. It distinguishes from siblings like list_tasks, list_projects, and update_task by using a specific verb and resource.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for new tasks, while update_task handles existing tasks, or that list_projects should be called first to obtain a project_id.

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