Invoke Human Tasks
Server Details
Hire humans for tasks AI agents can't do through Invoke's paid task marketplace.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools are essentially identical; hire_human is explicitly an alias for post_human_task, so an agent cannot distinguish them.
Both tools use verb_noun patterns but with different verbs ('hire' vs 'post'), and having an alias breaks naming consistency.
Only 2 tools for a service named 'Invoke Human Tasks' is too few; the scope feels underdeveloped.
Missing essential operations like listing tasks, checking status, or canceling; only one effective action (posting) is provided.
Available Tools
2 toolshire_humanHire humanAInspect
Alias for post_human_task: hire a human through Invoke for research, testing, verification, calls, or physical-world work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Short public title for the human task. | |
| category | No | Optional category such as research, testing, verification, calls, or physical-world. | |
| description | Yes | Detailed instructions for the human worker. | |
| reward_cents | Yes | Worker reward in USD cents. Must be 1000-50000. | |
| contact_email | Yes | Email address where Invoke can contact the task poster. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | Task status, typically pending_payment until the checkout is paid. |
| task_id | Yes | Invoke task identifier. |
| checkout_url | Yes | NanoCorp checkout URL to pay the platform fee and activate the task. |
| platform_fee_cents | Yes | Platform fee due before activation, in USD cents. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it hires a human, which aligns with open-world behavior but does not provide additional behavioral insights beyond the annotations.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the alias relationship and clearly conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words.
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 that it is an alias, the description is fully complete: it states the purpose and lists example categories. The presence of an output schema and 100% schema coverage means no further explanation is needed.
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 100% with each parameter having a description. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 it is an alias for post_human_task and specifies the purpose: hiring a human for various categories of work. It distinguishes itself by explicitly naming the sibling tool.
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 description tells the agent to use this tool as an alternative to post_human_task, providing context for when to hire a human. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
post_human_taskPost human taskBInspect
Post a paid human task to Invoke and receive the pending task id plus checkout URL for activation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Short public title for the human task. | |
| category | No | Optional category such as research, testing, verification, calls, or physical-world. | |
| description | Yes | Detailed instructions for the human worker. | |
| reward_cents | Yes | Worker reward in USD cents. Must be 1000-50000. | |
| contact_email | Yes | Email address where Invoke can contact the task poster. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | Task status, typically pending_payment until the checkout is paid. |
| task_id | Yes | Invoke task identifier. |
| checkout_url | Yes | NanoCorp checkout URL to pay the platform fee and activate the task. |
| platform_fee_cents | Yes | Platform fee due before activation, in USD cents. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey that the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds context about the pending state and the need for activation via checkout URL, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or consequences of non-payment.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs without any unnecessary words.
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?
The description includes the key return value (task id and checkout URL) and, combined with the schema and annotations, provides sufficient context for a tool with 5 parameters. However, it could benefit from mentioning the pending status more explicitly, though it's implied.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, only summarizing the task posting. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Post a paid human task'), the resource, and the outputs ('pending task id plus checkout URL'). It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'hire_human', though the mention of 'paid human task' implies a distinction.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'hire_human' or alternatives. The description does not include any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!