microsoft-todo-mcp-server

by vexxhost

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Create task

create_task

Create a new task in a Microsoft To Do list with title, optional body, due date, and importance level.

Instructions

Create a new task in a Microsoft To Do task list. due_date should be YYYY-MM-DD format. importance can be: low, normal, high.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "list_id": "<list_id>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No
`title`	Yes
`list_id`	Yes
`due_date`	No
`importance`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`due_date`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`importance`	Yes
`body_content`	Yes
`completed_at`	Yes
`body_content_type`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's lack of behavioral details is partially compensated. However, description does not mention idempotency, return behavior, or whether duplicate titles are allowed. Adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Essential information front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Output schema exists, so return format is covered. For a creation tool, description could mention that it returns the created task object, but given the output schema, this is acceptable. Lacks context about potential errors (e.g., invalid list_id).

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds format for due_date (YYYY-MM-DD) and enum values for importance (low, normal, high). But no info for list_id, title, or body. Partial improvement, not comprehensive.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create a new task in a Microsoft To Do task list', which is a specific verb+resource pair. This distinguishes it from siblings like complete_task, update_task, and delete_task.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., list must exist) or when to use update_task instead. Agent is left to infer usage.

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

Deploy Server