create_taskAdd a new task or to-do item to the accounting ledger, specifying type, due date, priority, and description.
Create a new task or to-do item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Task type: general, chase_invoice, pay_bill, filing_deadline, reconcile, review | |
| title | Yes | Task title | |
| due_date | No | Due date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| priority | No | Priority: low, medium, high, urgent | |
| description | No | Task description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'create'—it doesn't mention whether creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate titles, or any side effects. However, since annotations cover the basic safety profile, a 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't contradict annotations.
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 with no waste. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it's slightly under-specified for a tool with five parameters, but conciseness itself is good.
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 creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It doesn't mention return values, required fields beyond title, or any post-creation behavior. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minimum viable description, but it could add context about what 'task' means in this system.
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. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., type enum values) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Create a new task or to-do item.' This distinguishes it from read-only task tools like get_tasks, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from create_deadline or create_transaction. The title and description align well.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_deadline or create_transaction. The description implies general task creation but doesn't specify context, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools. An agent would have to infer usage from the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.