ContextLayer

create_task

Create a new task in a project. Tasks track work items and can be assigned to team members and linked to sessions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Tags for categorization (e.g. ['bug', 'frontend'])
`title`	Yes	Task title
`due_at`	No	Due date in ISO 8601 format (e.g. '2026-03-15T00:00:00Z')
`team_id`	No	Team ID (alternative to team_name)
`priority`	No	Priority: low, medium, high, urgent (default: medium)
`assignees`	No	Assignee names or emails (optional — resolves to user IDs)
`team_name`	No	Team name to assign to (optional — resolves to team ID)
`depends_on`	No	Task IDs that this task depends on / is blocked by (optional). Creates 'blocks' dependencies.
`project_id`	No	Project ID (alternative to project_name)
`description`	No	Task description (optional)
`project_name`	No	Project name to create the task in
`sprint_number`	No	Sprint number to assign the task to (optional — auto-assigns to current sprint if omitted)

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Create a new task' and mentions tasks can be assigned and linked, but does not describe side effects, return values, permission requirements, or failure modes. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no safety annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences long and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence provides useful context without any wasted words.

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 create tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite sparse. It lacks high-level details such as default behaviors, resolution rules, or what happens after creation. However, the comprehensive schema compensates for many param-level details, making the description minimally viable.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description need not repeat parameter details. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as the capability to link to sessions, but overall it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new task in a project,' which clearly identifies the action, resource, and scope. It also differentiates from sibling tools like assign_task and add_task_dependency by focusing on creation rather than assignment or dependency management.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies that this tool is for creating tasks, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools like assign_task and link_task_session suggest related operations, but the description does not address when to use them instead.

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

All ContextLayer tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct resource+action pairs (e.g., create_task vs update_task vs delete_task), but the large number of list/get/search tools creates some potential confusion, especially between get_context, search_entities, and find_documents. Descriptions are detailed and help, but the volume makes navigation less clear.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, list_, update_, etc.), with clear prefixes like add/remove and link/unlink. Deviations like 'whoami', 'find_documents' vs 'search_entities', and 'setup_organization' prevent a perfect score.

Tool Count1/5

62 tools is far beyond the typical MCP server scope and overwhelms agents with too many choices. Even if each tool is individually useful, the sheer count makes it difficult for an agent to efficiently select the right tool, increasing the likelihood of misselection.

Completeness3/5

The domain is well covered for projects, tasks, teams, sessions, and notifications, but there are notable gaps: no update_document, no get_task (only list/update/delete), no get_user, no reject_invite, and sprint management lacks update/delete operations. Core CRUD is present for many entities, but not all.

Resources

Need Help?