Simpler.Asia

team_assignment_create

[REQUIRES APPROVAL] Delegates a task to a teammate (or yourself) as a new team_assignment; status is workflow-owned and always starts 'pending' — passing status yourself fails validation instead of being silently overridden. Accepts natural language for the common fields: task_name/task for title, due_date/due for due_at ('YYYY-MM-DD', epoch millis, 'today', 'tomorrow', or 'next '), and 'self'/'me'/'yourself' for assigned_to. assigned_to must already be a member of your tenant. NEXT: team_assignment_accept, then _start and _complete, drive the lifecycle from there.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "team_assignment_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`due`	No	Alias of due_at (same accepted forms as due_date).
`task`	No	Alias of title (same as task_name).
`title`	No
`due_at`	No
`status`	No
`due_date`	No	Alias of due_at — "YYYY-MM-DD", "today", "tomorrow", or "next <weekday>" (epoch milliseconds also works — pass it via due_at directly instead).
`priority`	No
`task_name`	No	Alias of title — the task's name in plain language.
`started_at`	No
`accepted_at`	No
`artifact_id`	No
`assigned_to`	No
`declined_at`	No
`description`	No
`photos_json`	No
`completed_at`	No
`reassigned_at`	No
`reassigned_by`	No
`attachment_key`	No
`decline_reason`	No
`attachment_name`	No
`attachment_type`	No
`previous_status`	No
`completion_notes`	No
`previous_assignee`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses the approval requirement, that status is workflow-owned and passing it fails validation rather than being silently overridden, and the tenant-membership constraint. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs before calling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the approval flag and core action, then constraints, then the next-step chain. Every clause carries information, though the alias notation is compressed enough to require careful reading.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 25-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical semantics (status ownership, approval, assignee validity) but leaves much of the parameter surface unexplained and doesn't note that no fields are required. Adequate for the central path, incomplete for the full surface.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 16% across 25 parameters, and the description compensates for the important ones: it documents the task_name/task and due_date/due aliases, the accepted date formats, and the 'self'/'me' shortcut for assigned_to, plus the status constraint. Many remaining params (priority, description, attachments, photos_json, lifecycle timestamps) get no explanation in either place, so coverage is partial rather than complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delegates a task... as a new team_assignment') and immediately distinguishes this tool from the lifecycle siblings by noting status starts 'pending'. Combined with the [REQUIRES APPROVAL] tag, an agent knows exactly what this creates and what it is not.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear prerequisite ('assigned_to must already be a member of your tenant') and explicit routing ('NEXT: team_assignment_accept, then _start and _complete, drive the lifecycle from there'). It stops short of naming when to prefer team_assignment_update or reassign, but the creation-vs-lifecycle split is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Simpler.Asia tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?