Add a task to a milestone — DIRECT. assignee:"me" claims on creation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| done | No | ||
| name | Yes | Task name | |
| human | No | Human-only (GTM/validation/people work) — next_task & get_briefing skip it | |
| effort | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| assignee | No | "me" claims it | |
| milestone | No | If no id | |
| project_id | No | ||
| milestone_id | No | Preferred |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / humanAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Human-only (GTM/validation/people work) — next_task & get_briefing skip it",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / assignee / descriptionPrevious value: -"Claim it on creation — \"me\" = you (optional)"New value: +"\"me\" claims it"Input schema / properties / done / descriptionRemoved value: -"Mark it done on creation (optional, default false)"Input schema / properties / effort / descriptionRemoved value: -"Effort estimate (optional)"Input schema / properties / milestone / descriptionPrevious value: -"Milestone name (if no id; must be unique)"New value: +"If no id"Input schema / properties / milestone_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Milestone id (preferred)"New value: +"Preferred"Input schema / properties / project_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Project id (from list_projects) to act on; omit = the connector URL's project."Input schema / properties / status / descriptionRemoved value: -"Work-status LABEL — never part of the done count (optional)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotation (destructiveHint=false), the description discloses a specific behavior: setting assignee to 'me' claims the task on creation. It also conveys that this is a DIRECT action, not a proposal, providing useful behavioral context.
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 description is a single, compact sentence that conveys purpose and one key behavioral note. No filler words; every phrase earns its place.
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?
With 9 parameters, no output schema, and only a minimal annotation, the description is under-specified. It does not explain how to choose between milestone/project_id/milestone_id, what effort/status/human mean beyond schema snippets, or what happens on success/failure, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
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?
The description adds minor nuance to the assignee parameter ('claims on creation'), but the schema already describes assignee as '"me" claims it'. With schema coverage at 56%, the description does little to clarify milestone selection (milestone vs milestone_id) or the meaning of status/effort, leaving gaps.
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 clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'task to a milestone', making the core purpose unambiguous. 'DIRECT' distinguishes this from proposal-based sibling tools like propose_milestone or propose_task.
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 word 'DIRECT' implies this is the immediate, non-proposal path to create a task, which hints at usage vs propose_* siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over update_task or propose_* alternatives, nor does it specify exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with explicit distinctions between direct actions and proposals via Inbox. The verbs and object types (system, milestone, screen, element, balance) are unique enough that no two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_system, propose_screen, update_element). Minor deviations like 'dedupe', 'search', 'next_task', and 'reorder' are single words or non-verb but remain readable and stylistically compatible.
With 54 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical MCP scope, hitting the 'extreme mismatch' threshold. Even for a complex domain, the sheer number will overwhelm agents and degrade selection performance.
The tool surface is remarkably complete, covering full lifecycle operations for all major entities, plus import, design generation, drift detection, status reporting, inbox handling, and rejection workflows. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.