create_taskAdd a new task to a task list with a title, description, start and due dates, and assigned team members.
Create a task inside a task list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Task title | |
| dueAt | No | Due date, YYYY-MM-DD | |
| startAt | No | Start date, YYYY-MM-DD | |
| tasklistId | Yes | Task list to create the task in | |
| description | No | Task description (markdown supported) | |
| assigneeUserIds | No | User ids to assign |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'create' without mentioning side effects, return values, required authentication, or idempotency. This is minimal and does not add meaningful transparency beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it borders on tautology by closely mirroring the tool name. Still, it earns its place by specifying the resource context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It doesn't mention required fields, return behavior, or any constraints. An agent would need to inspect the schema and make assumptions about the response, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, but since the schema is thorough, this is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'task inside a task list', which precisely identifies the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_task and list_tasks, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating the action, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_task for modifications). It doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, so it relies on the agent inferring the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.