Creates a new OmniFocus tag, optionally nested under an existing tag using its parentTagId. Organize tasks by defining tags at the desired hierarchy level.
Create a new OmniFocus tag. Omit parentTagId to create at the top level; provide parentTagId to nest it under an existing tag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| parentTagId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the nesting behavior and optionality of parentTagId. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, uniqueness constraints, or whether the created tag is returned, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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?
Two sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is compactly placed second. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple create tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operation and the optional nesting behavior. It doesn't describe the return value or error handling, but those are less critical for a basic creation operation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond the raw schema. It does this well for parentTagId, clearly explaining the effect of omitting versus providing it. The name parameter is self-evident from the tool's purpose, so the description adequately compensates for the schema gap.
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 opens with the specific verb 'Create' and the resource 'a new OmniFocus tag', making the action unmistakable. The second sentence clarifies the two creation modes, which helps distinguish this tool from tag-related siblings like edit_tag or delete_tag.
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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: whenever a new tag needs to be created. It provides explicit instructions for both top-level and nested creation, though it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.