google-tasks-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_task

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.

Instructions

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.

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`due`	No
`notes`	No
`title`	Yes
`tasklist`	No
`parent_task_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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.

Deploy Server