Create a new task
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| title | Yes | Task title | |
| parentId | No | ID of parent task (for subtasks) | |
| priority | No | Priority (higher = more important, default: 0) | |
| blockedBy | No | Description of what blocks this task | |
| projectId | Yes | Project ID | |
| description | No | Detailed description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Create a new task.' It does not mention required fields, validation behavior, default priority, subtask semantics, or side effects. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it is under-specified for a 7-parameter mutation tool, so brevity trades away valuable guidance. It is not bloated, but it is too thin to be considered well-structured for the tool's complexity.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without key context about required parameters, expected response, and prerequisites. The schema covers parameter meaning, but behavioral and invocation context are missing. A write tool with this complexity needs more than a single clause.
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 description coverage is 86%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'new task,' which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. However, it misses useful details like the required projectId+title combination and default priority.
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 states a specific action (create) and resource (task), making the core purpose clear. It is not a tautology and is reasonably distinguishable from sibling tools like update_task. However, it could more explicitly differentiate itself from create_entry or create_project.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_task or other creation tools. Prerequisites such as an existing projectId are absent, leaving the agent to infer invocation context from the schema alone. The description does not state any exclusions or alternatives.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources (elements, knowledge, tasks, datasets, snapshots), but a few pairs blur boundaries: create_project/init_project both create projects, and pin_knowledge/set_knowledge_relevance both mark importance for future agents. The descriptions help separate them, but misselection is possible without careful reading.
Tool names consistently use snake_case verb_noun and have solid list_/get_/search_ conventions. However creation verbs are inconsistent (add_element vs create_entry vs save_dataset vs init_project), and deletion mixes delete_entry/delete_file with remove_element, making the naming pattern less predictable than it could be.
48 tools is well above the typical well-scoped range, and the set includes many lifecycle variants (create/init/save/add, delete/remove, update/set) that inflate the count. While the server covers a broad domain, the sheer number makes it heavy and harder for an agent to navigate.
The core surfaces (projects, elements, knowledge, timeline, tasks, chats, datasets, snapshots, files) have solid create/read/update coverage, with search and session-handoff tools. Notable gaps exist: read_file references a download path for binary files that no tool provides, and there is no get_entry or delete/archive for projects, datasets, snapshots, or chat sessions.