Add a subtask to an existing KanbanFlow task using board name, task ID, and subtask name to break work into trackable items.
Add a subtask to an existing task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| userId | No | ||
| task_id | Yes | ||
| finished | No | ||
| board_name | Yes | Name of the configured board to operate on (see list_boards) | |
| dueDateTimestamp | No | ||
| dueDateTimestampLocal | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only implies a mutation ('Add') and the prerequisite that the parent task must exist, but discloses nothing about required permissions, side effects, return values, or whether the subtask inherits fields from the parent.
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 one-sentence description is front-loaded and free of filler, so it is concise. However, it is arguably too terse for a tool with seven parameters and no annotations, bordering on under-specification rather than optimal brevity.
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's complexity (7 parameters, 3 required), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.
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 only 14% (just board_name), yet the description adds no parameter detail. It does not explain name, task_id, userId, finished, or the dueDate parameters, leaving the schema to do nearly all the work with minimal descriptions.
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 specific verb 'Add' and resource 'subtask' with the prerequisite 'to an existing task'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling create_task by scoping it to subtasks, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with alternatives.
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: adding a subtask to an existing task. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over create_task or other alternatives, and no when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.