Create a new todo item in a Basecamp 2 todo list by providing project, list, content, and optional due date or assignee.
Create a new todo item in a todo list
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| due_on | No | Due date in YYYY-MM-DD format (optional) | |
| content | Yes | The text content of the todo | |
| project_id | Yes | The project ID | |
| assignee_id | No | Person ID to assign this todo to (optional) | |
| todolist_id | Yes | The todo list ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose permission or auth requirements, whether the todo is appended to the end of the list, what defaults apply when optional fields are omitted, or what the response returns. Only the bare fact of creation is conveyed.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler and the purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It never notes the three required fields (project_id, todolist_id, content), the need for an existing todolist, or any behavioral outcome, leaving the agent reliant entirely on the schema.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including formats like YYYY-MM-DD for due_on. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3 for a fully covered schema.
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?
States a specific verb (create) and resource (todo item in a todo list), which distinguishes it from get_todo, update_todo, delete_todo, and complete_todo. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from create_todolist or create_message beyond the resource noun, so it stops short of a 5.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_todolist (which must exist first) or update_todo. No prerequisites, no mention that a todolist must already exist, and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.