Creates a Google Task with a title, optional due date, notes, target list, or parent task ID so users can add to-dos and subtasks directly.
Create a task (marked as created by Claude). due is YYYY-MM-DD; tasklist is a list
id or title; parent_task_id makes it a subtask.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| due | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| tasklist | No | ||
| parent_task_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses the Claude-author attribution side effect and the subtask behavior of parent_task_id, but says nothing about failure modes (e.g., an unknown tasklist title) or whether omitted fields get defaults. Adequate but not rich.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the per-parameter clarifications. Every clause carries information the schema does not.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the non-obvious parameters and the attribution behavior; only error/default behavior around `tasklist` and `notes` is missing.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the ambiguous parameters: `due` format is given as YYYY-MM-DD, `tasklist` accepts an id or a title, and `parent_task_id` is explained as making the task a subtask. `notes` and `title` are left implicit but are self-evident given `title` is required.
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 and resource ("Create a task") plus a distinguishing side-effect detail: the task is attributed to Claude. It does not name or contrast with siblings like update_task, but the verb is unambiguous enough that an agent can pick it out of the list.
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 prefer this over update_task or whether a tasklist must exist first (list_task_lists is a sibling). The usage is only implied by the word "Create"; no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.