Support for real mentions (users and tasks) via API and automations
future
P
Patrick Nakai
Today, when we create comments via API or automations (such as n8n), it's not possible to make real mentions of users or tasks.
Even using @nome, ClickUp treats this only as text, without generating notification or mention link.
This greatly limits the use of automations in real operation and CRM scenarios, where we need to automatically trigger people within tasks.
A practical example: imagine an automation that analyzes the copy of a site and identifies an error. In this case, the ideal would be for the automation to automatically create a comment on the task, mentioning the responsible person, requesting the adjustment.
Today this does not work properly, as the “mention” sent via automation is not recognized as a real mention, and the person does not receive notification.
Another important point is the possibility of mentioning the task itself or other elements to give more context within the automated comments, especially in more complex flows.
Without this support, we are forced to use alternatives such as assigning tasks just to generate notification, or even sending alerts from outside (such as Slack or WhatsApp), which breaks the centralized experience within ClickUp.
It would be very important for the API and the automations to support real mentions (of users and tasks), just as it works in the manual editor.
This would allow creating much more intelligent automations, with automatic, contextual and truly functional communication within the platform.
Log In
Zach - ClickUp
marked this post as
future
Zach - ClickUp
When you create a comment via API or automation, @mentions just render as plain text and nobody gets notified. For CRM workflows where you're trying to route a task to a specific person automatically, that completely undercuts it.
No near-term fix here. Comment creation through the API and automation engine bypasses the notification layer that real @mentions go through in the web app, and closing that gap takes work across two surfaces. We know about it and want to solve it, just no timeline to share.
Also worth noting: the @@Task ID chip issue is a related but separate gap, and your post covers both.