OrgLines

Create task

create_task

Create a personal task in the caller's active workspace. Use for a to-do captured from chat. Set priority (low/normal/high) and an optional due date (YYYY-MM-DD). Additive and low-risk. NOTE: a personal task's priority scale (low/normal/high) is deliberately a DIFFERENT scale from a CRM lead's priority (low/medium/high/hot) — they are separate domains (a personal to-do vs a sales lead), not to be conflated. CONFIRMATION: this tool runs immediately when the caller asks for it — it writes only their own record, and they can undo it from this same surface, so the request is taken as the instruction. You get an ordinary result, not a plan_token. Everything destructive, outbound or financial still proposes and waits.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes
`due_date`	No
`priority`	No
`description`	No
`is_agent_directive`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare a non-destructive write; the description goes well beyond that by stating the tool is additive, low-risk, writes only the caller's own record, is undoable from the same surface, and returns an ordinary result rather than a plan_token. That is exactly the execution-model context an agent needs and cannot get from the structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining sentences are labelled by concern (NOTE, CONFIRMATION), which makes scanning easy. The CRM-priority comparison and the confirmation explanation are longer than strictly necessary and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers execution semantics and safety well, which is the main risk area for a write tool. The gaps are the undocumented is_agent_directive parameter and the absence of any statement about what the created record returns (e.g. an id).

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 description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It adds real meaning for priority (scale values, and why they differ from CRM lead priority) and due_date (YYYY-MM-DD), but says nothing about title, description, or the unexplained is_agent_directive boolean.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb plus resource and scope: 'Create a personal task in the caller's active workspace.' It also explicitly separates the personal-task domain from the CRM lead domain, so an agent can tell this apart from sibling creation tools without opening a schema.

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?

'Use for a to-do captured from chat' gives a concrete triggering context, and the CONFIRMATION paragraph explains when the tool executes immediately versus when other actions must propose and wait. It stops short of naming the specific alternatives (e.g. batch or CRM creation) that would make exclusion guidance complete.

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

All OrgLines 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?