Skip to main content
Glama

task_batch_create

Create multiple OmniFocus tasks in a single atomic batch. Validates all inputs upfront, then executes each task independently with per-index success/failure reporting. Use idempotency keys for retry safety.

Instructions

Create many OmniFocus tasks in a single JXA round trip. Validation is atomic: if any input fails schema, the whole batch is rejected before any mutation. Execution is best-effort: once the batch reaches OmniFocus, each task succeeds or fails independently, and the response reports per-index outcomes. Prefer this tool over repeated task_create calls whenever you are creating more than one task. Each item accepts the same shape as task_create (name, optional projectId or parentTaskId, note, flagged, dueDate, deferDate, estimatedMinutes, tagIds, sequential, completedByChildren). Pass idempotency_key to coalesce retries — without one, replaying a half-applied batch duplicates the applied subset. Returns { created: [{index, value: { id, name }}], failed: [{index, errorCode, message}] } — value carries the task name (echoed from the input) so the agent can describe each new task without a follow-up read. Side effects: creates tasks in OmniFocus, sets meta.syncPending = true. Call sync_trigger when you need the tasks to appear on other devices. Example: task_batch_create({ items: [{ name: "Buy milk" }, { name: "Call dentist", projectId: "prj123" }] })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYesArray of task inputs. Must contain at least one item.
idempotency_keyNoIdempotency key for retry-safe batches. Replays within the TTL window return the cached envelope with meta.idempotentReplay = true. See docs/idempotency.md.
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details atomic validation, best-effort execution, per-index outcomes, side effects (creates tasks, sets meta.syncPending = true), and idempotency key behavior. Agent gains a clear understanding of what happens during and after invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with key points front-loaded: purpose, key behaviors, usage advice, parameter summary, return format, side effects. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence contributes value. Could be trimmed by a couple of words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (batch creation with validation, best-effort, idempotency, side effects), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use, behavioral details, return format, and side effects. No output schema exists, so the return format description is crucial and well-provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions on all parameters. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining batch behavior (atomic validation, best-effort), idempotency_key purpose, and the return shape. However, it does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create many OmniFocus tasks in a single JXA round trip.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifically recommending this tool over repeated task_create calls for multiple tasks. The verb 'create' and resource 'tasks' are unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly advises when to use this tool: 'Prefer this tool over repeated task_create calls whenever you are creating more than one task.' It also covers idempotency key usage for retries. It does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for a single task), but that is implied by the sibling tool task_create being preferred for single tasks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/torsday/omnifocus-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server