Stoory Hire Specialist
Server Details
Find and hire a human specialist from the Stoory marketplace, right from chat.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- StooryGitServer/stoory-mcp-server
- GitHub Stars
- 0
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool maps to a distinct phase of the hiring workflow: discovering specialists, creating a task, checking task progress/result, and cancelling. There is no functional overlap between them.
All tools use lower_snake_case with a consistent verb_noun pattern: cancel_task, create_task, get_task, search_specialists. The object differs only because one searches specialists rather than tasks, which is natural for the domain.
Four tools is a lean but appropriate number for this domain. Each tool earns its place by covering a necessary step without redundancy, and the set is neither thin nor bloated.
The core lifecycle—search, create, inspect/read, and cancel—is present and covers the main user journey. A minor gap is the lack of an update_task or list_tasks tool, but agents can work around this using get_task and the create_task response.
Available Tools
4 toolscancel_taskCancel taskAInspect
Cancels the task, as long as the specialist has not started work yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses an important conditional behavior: cancellation is only possible before work has started. However, it does not mention what happens if the specialist has already started, whether cancellation is reversible, or what response can be expected.
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?
A single sentence that states the action and the critical precondition without wasted words. The most important constraint is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
For a simple single-parameter mutation tool, the purpose and precondition are present. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out likely useful details such as error behavior when the task cannot be cancelled and whether the action is irreversible.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain the task_id parameter. The meaning is weakly implied by 'Cancels the task,' but the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 names a specific verb ('Cancels') and resource ('the task'), and includes the key precondition. It is clearly distinct from its siblings, which create, retrieve, or search tasks rather than cancel them.
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 supplies the relevant condition for use: cancellation is valid only when the specialist has not started work. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but none of the siblings perform a comparable cancel operation, so this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_taskCreate taskAInspect
Invites one or more chosen specialists to a project — does NOT charge payment. budget is a single amount for the whole task (not multiplied per specialist) — whoever accepts it does the work for it. Requires user_confirmed=true, set only after the user has explicitly confirmed in the conversation the choice of specialists, the list of shared files and the estimated cost. Estimate budget yourself from the problem's complexity (e.g. 1h = a single well-localized bug / a simple document fix / a minor graphic tweak; 2h = a standard debug across a few files / a draft legal document (e.g. Privacy Policy) / a landing page design; 3h = an architecture review, a full legal package (ToS+Privacy+GDPR) or a compliance audit, full branding, no clear diagnosis) times the specialist's min_rate_per_hour (from search_specialists) — this field is informational, not enforced, always in USD (the only currency on the marketplace).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| budget | Yes | ||
| language | Yes | The task's language — must match the language the user phrased title/description in (there is no auto-detection, set it according to the user's input). | |
| timeline | No | How urgent the project is from the client's perspective — ask the user directly, do not guess. | No rush |
| description | Yes | ||
| context_files | No | The minimal set of files the specialist needs. Each entry is { name, url?, content_base64? } and must carry exactly one source. `url` is strongly preferred: pass a link if the user gave one (Google Drive / Dropbox / S3 / raw GitHub) — the server rewrites common Google Drive and Dropbox share links to their direct-download form, and rejects a URL that returns a web page instead of a file — or, if you have a way to upload the file yourself (e.g. a code execution / shell environment) — upload it to any URL-reachable location first and pass that link instead of the raw bytes; the server just downloads it, which is fast and costs you almost no extra tokens. Use `content_base64` only as a last resort, when there is no URL and you have no way to produce one yourself (e.g. a small file the user attached directly in a chat-only client with no upload capability of its own) — inlining bytes means writing out the entire file as text, which is slow and burns far more tokens than a URL for anything beyond a tiny file. Before falling back to it, tell the user that creating the task will take noticeably longer and use more tokens because of it. Raw base64 only, never a `data:...;base64,` prefix. This server runs remotely and cannot read the caller's disk, so never pass local paths. The server scans every file for secrets, then uploads the rest to the task's file storage on Stoory; contents never enter the model context. Max 5MB per file. Entries that are unreadable or filtered as secrets come back in blocked_files — the task is still created without them. | |
| specialist_ids | Yes | Id of one or more specialists to invite. | |
| user_confirmed | Yes | Must be true — set it only after the user's explicit confirmation in the conversation. | |
| problem_context | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses side effects and behaviors: it does not charge, budget is informational, files are scanned for secrets, blocked_files are excluded without failing the task, and contents never enter model context. This is highly transparent.
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 long but dense, with every sentence carrying a distinct rule or fact. It is well-structured but could benefit from more skimmable formatting (e.g., bullet points) given the volume of information.
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?
Even without an output schema, the description explains the return behavior for blocked_files and the overall task creation outcome. It also covers edge cases like URL rewriting, base64 pitfalls, and local path restrictions, making it contextually complete.
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 only 56%, but the description adds crucial semantics for budget (single amount, USD, complexity-based estimation), language (must match user phrasing), context_files (URL preferred, base64 fallback, 5MB limit), specialist_ids, and user_confirmed. This covers all undocumented parameters comprehensively.
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?
States exactly what the tool does (invites specialists to a project) and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_specialists, cancel_task, get_task_status, and get_task_result. The non-charge and budget clarifications further disambiguate its purpose.
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?
Provides explicit prerequisites (user_confirmed=true only after user confirmation), a concrete budget estimation heuristic, and detailed file-handling instructions. This tells the agent precisely when and how to invoke it, filling all usage gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_taskGet taskAInspect
Returns the whole task record in one call — use it both to check progress and to read the result. Fields: status, title, desc, budget, deadline, timeline, created, modified; specialist_invited and specialist_accepted (arrays of { id, profile_url } — profile_url is already in the right language, show it to the user as a link, not a bare id); and files — URLs of every file attached to the task on Stoory (the client's context files plus whatever the specialist delivers). Call it again when the user asks about progress. create_task already returns attached_files for the files it uploaded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. While the description says 'Returns' which implies a read operation, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or that it is safe to call repeatedly. This is a minor gap for a get-style tool.
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 somewhat verbose with redundant phrasing ('use it both to check progress and to read the result' vs. 'Call it again when the user asks about progress') and includes an unnecessary note about profile_url formatting. However, it remains reasonably concise and well-structured.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description lists the fields returned (status, title, desc, budget, deadline, timeline, created, modified, specialist_invited, specialist_accepted, files). It also clarifies how to present profile_url and files. It doesn't address errors or edge cases, but for a simple fetch operation the given details are sufficient.
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 schema has one parameter, task_id, but the description does not explain its format, purpose, or constraints. Although the name is self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the type string. With 0% schema coverage, the description should have provided more context.
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 tool 'Returns the whole task record' and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task, cancel_task, and search_specialists. It also explains its dual use for progress checking and result reading.
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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('use it both to check progress and to read the result') and repeats this guidance ('Call it again when the user asks about progress'). It does not mention alternative tools, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_specialistsSearch specialistsAInspect
Searches for specialists in the Stoory marketplace via semantic search. Result quality depends mostly on a well-built query — see the query field description. If a result has <3 hits or only 'Alternative fit', retry with a simpler/broader query (see query) instead of asking the user; only after about 3 failed attempts tell the user you have no one to recommend for these requirements and suggest widening the criteria.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default 10, raise to 20 for weak results or when the user asks for more options (max 20). | |
| query | Yes | The specialist's role and skills, MAX 12 words, natural language — not a full sentence describing the user's problem. In English if possible (faster response and better hits than other languages). Good: 'Senior Stripe developer', 'Professional logo designer', 'Experienced UX designer for mobile apps'. Bad: 'I need someone who can help me with branding and visual identity design' (full sentence instead of a role), 'Full-stack developer with microservices architecture experience' (too much glued-together specificity at once). When results are weak (<3 hits or only 'Alternative fit'), retry with a progressively simpler/broader query instead of asking the user, e.g. 'Senior mobile app developer for fintech startup' → 'Mobile app developer' → 'App developer' → 'Mobile development'; or 'GDPR compliance lawyer for healthcare startup' → 'GDPR lawyer' → 'Data protection lawyer' → 'Lawyer'. | |
| country | No | Only when the user explicitly asks for the specialist's country (e.g. 'a designer from Poland'). Full English country name, e.g. "Poland", "Germany" — not an ISO code. Ignored if geo_location is also given. Omit the field when the user did not mention a country. | |
| languages | No | Only when the user explicitly asks for a specific specialist language (e.g. 'a Polish-speaking designer'). Allowed values: English, Polish, German, French, Spanish, Italian — any other value is rejected by the API. Omit the field (or []) when the user did not mention a language. | |
| geo_location | No | Only when the user gives a specific city/location and wants to search nearby (e.g. 'near Warsaw', 'a designer in Warsaw'). An object { lat, lon, radius_meters } — determine the lat/lon of the named city yourself. Default radius_meters is 50000 (50km); when there are too few results, raise it to 100000, then 200000 instead of broadening the query. Takes priority over `country` if both are given. Omit the field when the user did not mention a location. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals genuinely useful behavioral traits: result quality depends on query construction, weak results manifest as '<3 hits or only Alternative fit,' and the expected agent behavior is an autonomous retry loop with an escalation threshold. It does not explicitly declare read-only safety, but 'Searches ... via semantic search' strongly implies a non-mutating operation, and no auth/rate-limit context is given.
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 main description is two sentences (~70 words), purpose front-loaded, with every clause carrying actionable guidance — the weak-result condition, the retry instruction, the ~3-attempt threshold, and the user-facing fallback message. There is minor overlap where the retry rule reappears in the query schema description, but the description adds the escalation threshold not stated there, making the overlap complementary rather than padding.
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 the tool's complexity — 5 parameters, a nested geo_location object, and retry semantics — the description plus schema cover purpose, per-parameter inclusion rules, query-construction guidance, and the failure escalation path. No output schema exists, but the description references the result's key interpretive signals ('<3 hits,' 'Alternative fit'), giving the agent enough to judge result quality; a formal return-payload spec is the main missing piece.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema's per-parameter guidance is unusually rich: query has a 12-word limit with good/bad examples, and country/languages/geo_location all state explicit include-only-when-asked conditions and priority rules. The main description only points to the query field description rather than adding new parameter meaning, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies without upward adjustment.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Searches for specialists in the Stoory marketplace via semantic search,' naming the domain, the target entity, and the mechanism. The sibling tools are all task-lifecycle operations (cancel_task, create_task, get_task_status), so there is no plausible confusion between this marketplace-search tool and any sibling.
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 gives an explicit failure-handling protocol: retry with a simpler/broader query instead of asking the user, and only after ~3 failed attempts tell the user there is no one to recommend and suggest widening criteria. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but none of them are search alternatives; the guidance centers on the retry loop rather than tool selection, so an explicit 'when not to use' is less critical here.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
3 tool updates
- Added
get_task - Removed
get_task_result - Removed
get_task_status
1 tool update
- Changed
create_task1 field changed- changed
Input schema / properties / context_files / descriptionPrevious value: -"The minimal set of files the specialist needs. Each entry is { name, url?, content_base64? } and must carry exactly one source. `url` is strongly preferred: pass a link if the user gave one (Google Drive / Dropbox / S3 / raw GitHub), or — if you have a way to upload the file yourself (e.g. a code execution / shell environment) — upload it to any URL-reachable location first and pass that link instead of the raw bytes; the server just downloads it, which is fast and costs you almost no extra tokens. Use `content_base64` only as a last resort, when there is no URL and you have no way to produce one yourself (e.g. a small file the user attached directly in a chat-only client with no upload capability of its own) — inlining bytes means writing out the entire file as text, which is slow and burns far more tokens than a URL for anything beyond a tiny file. Before falling back to it, tell the user that creating the task will take noticeably longer and use more tokens because of it. Raw base64 only, never a `data:...;base64,` prefix. This server runs remotely and cannot read the caller's disk, so never pass local paths. The server scans every file for secrets, then uploads the rest to the task's file storage on Stoory; contents never enter the model context. Max 5MB per file. Entries that are unreadable or filtered as secrets come back in blocked_files — the task is still created without them."New value: +"The minimal set of files the specialist needs. Each entry is { name, url?, content_base64? } and must carry exactly one source. `url` is strongly preferred: pass a link if the user gave one (Google Drive / Dropbox / S3 / raw GitHub) — the server rewrites common Google Drive and Dropbox share links to their direct-download form, and rejects a URL that returns a web page instead of a file — or, if you have a way to upload the file yourself (e.g. a code execution / shell environment) — upload it to any URL-reachable location first and pass that link instead of the raw bytes; the server just downloads it, which is fast and costs you almost no extra tokens. Use `content_base64` only as a last resort, when there is no URL and you have no way to produce one yourself (e.g. a small file the user attached directly in a chat-only client with no upload capability of its own) — inlining bytes means writing out the entire file as text, which is slow and burns far more tokens than a URL for anything beyond a tiny file. Before falling back to it, tell the user that creating the task will take noticeably longer and use more tokens because of it. Raw base64 only, never a `data:...;base64,` prefix. This server runs remotely and cannot read the caller's disk, so never pass local paths. The server scans every file for secrets, then uploads the rest to the task's file storage on Stoory; contents never enter the model context. Max 5MB per file. Entries that are unreadable or filtered as secrets come back in blocked_files — the task is still created without them."
2 tool updates
- Changed
create_task1 field changed- changed
Input schema / properties / context_files / descriptionPrevious value: -"The minimal set of files the specialist needs. Each entry is { name, url?, content_base64? } and must carry exactly one source. `url` is strongly preferred: pass a link if the user gave one (Google Drive / Dropbox / S3 / raw GitHub), or — if you have a way to upload the file yourself (e.g. a code execution / shell environment) — upload it to any URL-reachable location first and pass that link instead of the raw bytes; the server just downloads it, which is fast and costs you almost no extra tokens. Use `content_base64` only as a last resort, when there is no URL and you have no way to produce one yourself (e.g. a small file the user attached directly in a chat-only client with no upload capability of its own) — inlining bytes means writing out the entire file as text, which is slow and burns far more tokens than a URL for anything beyond a tiny file. Before falling back to it, tell the user that creating the task will take noticeably longer and use more tokens because of it. Raw base64 only, never a `data:...;base64,` prefix. This server runs remotely and cannot read the caller's disk, so never pass local paths. For a large binary with no URL and no way to upload it yourself, don't inline it — tell the user to add it to the task repo manually instead. The server scans every file for secrets and pushes the rest to a private GitHub repo created for this task; contents never enter the model context. Never the whole repo, max 1 file = ~900KB. A non-empty list always gets a repo, even if every entry ends up in blocked_files (unreadable or filtered) — so the 'add it manually' fallback always has a real repo_url to point to. The GitHub username used to invite the client into the task repo comes from their Stoory account, not from you — you never see or pass it. If create_task fails because it's missing or invalid, tell the user to check/set their GitHub username in their Stoory account settings, then retry create_task."New value: +"The minimal set of files the specialist needs. Each entry is { name, url?, content_base64? } and must carry exactly one source. `url` is strongly preferred: pass a link if the user gave one (Google Drive / Dropbox / S3 / raw GitHub), or — if you have a way to upload the file yourself (e.g. a code execution / shell environment) — upload it to any URL-reachable location first and pass that link instead of the raw bytes; the server just downloads it, which is fast and costs you almost no extra tokens. Use `content_base64` only as a last resort, when there is no URL and you have no way to produce one yourself (e.g. a small file the user attached directly in a chat-only client with no upload capability of its own) — inlining bytes means writing out the entire file as text, which is slow and burns far more tokens than a URL for anything beyond a tiny file. Before falling back to it, tell the user that creating the task will take noticeably longer and use more tokens because of it. Raw base64 only, never a `data:...;base64,` prefix. This server runs remotely and cannot read the caller's disk, so never pass local paths. The server scans every file for secrets, then uploads the rest to the task's file storage on Stoory; contents never enter the model context. Max 5MB per file. Entries that are unreadable or filtered as secrets come back in blocked_files — the task is still created without them."
- Removed
get_task_repo_files
1 tool update
- Changed
create_task1 field changed- changed
Input schema / properties / context_files / descriptionPrevious value: -"The minimal set of files the specialist needs. This server runs remotely and cannot read the caller's disk, so do NOT pass local paths. Each entry is { name, url?, content_base64? } and must carry exactly one source: `url` (the server downloads it — prefer this when the user gave a link, e.g. Google Drive / Dropbox / S3 / raw GitHub) or `content_base64` (inline bytes, for small local or chat-uploaded files; raw base64 only, no `data:...;base64,` prefix). For a large binary with no URL (e.g. an image), do not inline it — tell the user to add it to the task repo manually. The server scans every file for secrets and pushes the rest to a private GitHub repo created for this task; contents never enter the model context. Never the whole repo, max 1 file = ~900KB. A non-empty list always gets a repo, even if every entry ends up in blocked_files (unreadable or filtered) — so the 'add it manually' fallback always has a real repo_url to point to. The user must have github_username set — if create_task reports it missing, ask the user for their GitHub login and try again."New value: +"The minimal set of files the specialist needs. Each entry is { name, url?, content_base64? } and must carry exactly one source. `url` is strongly preferred: pass a link if the user gave one (Google Drive / Dropbox / S3 / raw GitHub), or — if you have a way to upload the file yourself (e.g. a code execution / shell environment) — upload it to any URL-reachable location first and pass that link instead of the raw bytes; the server just downloads it, which is fast and costs you almost no extra tokens. Use `content_base64` only as a last resort, when there is no URL and you have no way to produce one yourself (e.g. a small file the user attached directly in a chat-only client with no upload capability of its own) — inlining bytes means writing out the entire file as text, which is slow and burns far more tokens than a URL for anything beyond a tiny file. Before falling back to it, tell the user that creating the task will take noticeably longer and use more tokens because of it. Raw base64 only, never a `data:...;base64,` prefix. This server runs remotely and cannot read the caller's disk, so never pass local paths. For a large binary with no URL and no way to upload it yourself, don't inline it — tell the user to add it to the task repo manually instead. The server scans every file for secrets and pushes the rest to a private GitHub repo created for this task; contents never enter the model context. Never the whole repo, max 1 file = ~900KB. A non-empty list always gets a repo, even if every entry ends up in blocked_files (unreadable or filtered) — so the 'add it manually' fallback always has a real repo_url to point to. The GitHub username used to invite the client into the task repo comes from their Stoory account, not from you — you never see or pass it. If create_task fails because it's missing or invalid, tell the user to check/set their GitHub username in their Stoory account settings, then retry create_task."
1 tool update
- Changed
create_task1 field changed- changed
Input schema / properties / context_files / descriptionPrevious value: -"The minimal set of files the specialist needs. This server runs remotely and cannot read the caller's disk, so do NOT pass local paths. Each entry is { name, url?, content_base64? } and must carry exactly one source: `url` (the server downloads it — prefer this when the user gave a link, e.g. Google Drive / Dropbox / S3 / raw GitHub) or `content_base64` (inline bytes, for small local or chat-uploaded files; raw base64 only, no `data:...;base64,` prefix). For a large binary with no URL (e.g. an image), do not inline it — tell the user to add it to the task repo manually. The server scans every file for secrets and pushes the rest to a private GitHub repo created for this task; contents never enter the model context. Never the whole repo, max 1 file = ~900KB. With a non-empty list the user must have github_username set — if create_task reports it missing, ask the user for their GitHub login and try again."New value: +"The minimal set of files the specialist needs. This server runs remotely and cannot read the caller's disk, so do NOT pass local paths. Each entry is { name, url?, content_base64? } and must carry exactly one source: `url` (the server downloads it — prefer this when the user gave a link, e.g. Google Drive / Dropbox / S3 / raw GitHub) or `content_base64` (inline bytes, for small local or chat-uploaded files; raw base64 only, no `data:...;base64,` prefix). For a large binary with no URL (e.g. an image), do not inline it — tell the user to add it to the task repo manually. The server scans every file for secrets and pushes the rest to a private GitHub repo created for this task; contents never enter the model context. Never the whole repo, max 1 file = ~900KB. A non-empty list always gets a repo, even if every entry ends up in blocked_files (unreadable or filtered) — so the 'add it manually' fallback always has a real repo_url to point to. The user must have github_username set — if create_task reports it missing, ask the user for their GitHub login and try again."
1 tool update
- Changed
create_task1 field changed- changed
Input schema / properties / context_files / descriptionPrevious value: -"The minimal set of files the specialist needs. This server runs remotely and cannot read the caller's disk, so do NOT pass local paths. Each entry is { name, url?, content_base64? } and must carry exactly one source: `url` (the server downloads it — prefer this when the user gave a link, e.g. Google Drive / Dropbox / S3 / raw GitHub) or `content_base64` (inline bytes, for small local or chat-uploaded files). For a large binary with no URL (e.g. an image), do not inline it — tell the user to add it to the task repo manually. The server scans every file for secrets and pushes the rest to a private GitHub repo created for this task; contents never enter the model context. Never the whole repo, max 1 file = ~900KB. With a non-empty list the user must have github_username set — if create_task reports it missing, ask the user for their GitHub login and try again."New value: +"The minimal set of files the specialist needs. This server runs remotely and cannot read the caller's disk, so do NOT pass local paths. Each entry is { name, url?, content_base64? } and must carry exactly one source: `url` (the server downloads it — prefer this when the user gave a link, e.g. Google Drive / Dropbox / S3 / raw GitHub) or `content_base64` (inline bytes, for small local or chat-uploaded files; raw base64 only, no `data:...;base64,` prefix). For a large binary with no URL (e.g. an image), do not inline it — tell the user to add it to the task repo manually. The server scans every file for secrets and pushes the rest to a private GitHub repo created for this task; contents never enter the model context. Never the whole repo, max 1 file = ~900KB. With a non-empty list the user must have github_username set — if create_task reports it missing, ask the user for their GitHub login and try again."
2 tool updates
- Changed
create_task10 fields changed- changed
Input schema / properties / context_files / descriptionPrevious value: -"Minimalny zestaw plików potrzebny specjaliście — tylko ścieżki lokalne, NIE wklejaj treści plików. Serwer sam czyta plik z dysku i wrzuca go do prywatnego repo GitHub utworzonego dla tego taska — treść nigdy nie trafia do kontekstu modelu. Nigdy całe repo, max 1 plik = ~900KB. Przy niepustej liście user musi mieć ustawiony github_username — jeśli create_task to zgłosi, dopytaj usera o jego login GitHub i spróbuj ponownie."New value: +"The minimal set of files the specialist needs. This server runs remotely and cannot read the caller's disk, so do NOT pass local paths. Each entry is { name, url?, content_base64? } and must carry exactly one source: `url` (the server downloads it — prefer this when the user gave a link, e.g. Google Drive / Dropbox / S3 / raw GitHub) or `content_base64` (inline bytes, for small local or chat-uploaded files). For a large binary with no URL (e.g. an image), do not inline it — tell the user to add it to the task repo manually. The server scans every file for secrets and pushes the rest to a private GitHub repo created for this task; contents never enter the model context. Never the whole repo, max 1 file = ~900KB. With a non-empty list the user must have github_username set — if create_task reports it missing, ask the user for their GitHub login and try again." - added
Input schema / properties / context_files / items / properties / content_base64Added value: +{ + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / context_files / items / properties / nameAdded value: +{ + "type": "string" +} - removed
Input schema / properties / context_files / items / properties / pathRemoved value: -{ - "type": "string" -} - added
Input schema / properties / context_files / items / properties / urlAdded value: +{ + "format": "uri", + "type": "string" +} - changed
Input schema / properties / context_files / items / requiredPrevious value: -[ - "path" -]New value: +[ + "name" +] - changed
Input schema / properties / language / descriptionPrevious value: -"Język taska — musi odpowiadać językowi, w jakim user sformułował title/description (nie ma automatycznego wykrywania, ustaw zgodnie z danymi usera)."New value: +"The task's language — must match the language the user phrased title/description in (there is no auto-detection, set it according to the user's input)." - changed
Input schema / properties / specialist_ids / descriptionPrevious value: -"Id jednego lub kilku specjalistów do zaproszenia."New value: +"Id of one or more specialists to invite." - changed
Input schema / properties / timeline / descriptionPrevious value: -"Jak pilny jest projekt z perspektywy klienta — pytaj usera wprost, nie zgaduj."New value: +"How urgent the project is from the client's perspective — ask the user directly, do not guess." - changed
Input schema / properties / user_confirmed / descriptionPrevious value: -"Musi być true — ustaw wyłącznie po jawnym potwierdzeniu przez usera w rozmowie"New value: +"Must be true — set it only after the user's explicit confirmation in the conversation."
- Changed
search_specialists5 fields changed- changed
Input schema / properties / country / descriptionPrevious value: -"Tylko gdy user jawnie prosi o kraj specjalisty (np. 'grafik z Polski'). Pełna angielska nazwa kraju, np. \"Poland\", \"Germany\" — nie kod ISO. Ignorowane, jeśli podano też geo_location. Pomiń pole, gdy user nie wspomniał o kraju."New value: +"Only when the user explicitly asks for the specialist's country (e.g. 'a designer from Poland'). Full English country name, e.g. \"Poland\", \"Germany\" — not an ISO code. Ignored if geo_location is also given. Omit the field when the user did not mention a country." - changed
Input schema / properties / geo_location / descriptionPrevious value: -"Tylko gdy user podaje konkretne miasto/lokalizację i chce szukać w okolicy (np. 'w okolicy Warszawy', 'designer w Warszawie'). Obiekt { lat, lon, radius_meters } — ustal lat/lon wskazanego miasta samodzielnie. Domyślny radius_meters to 50000 (50km); przy zbyt małej liczbie wyników zwiększaj do 100000, potem 200000 zamiast poszerzać query. Ma priorytet nad `country`, jeśli oba podane. Pomiń pole, gdy user nie wspomniał o lokalizacji."New value: +"Only when the user gives a specific city/location and wants to search nearby (e.g. 'near Warsaw', 'a designer in Warsaw'). An object { lat, lon, radius_meters } — determine the lat/lon of the named city yourself. Default radius_meters is 50000 (50km); when there are too few results, raise it to 100000, then 200000 instead of broadening the query. Takes priority over `country` if both are given. Omit the field when the user did not mention a location." - changed
Input schema / properties / languages / descriptionPrevious value: -"Tylko gdy user jawnie prosi o konkretny język specjalisty (np. 'polskojęzyczny grafik'). Dozwolone wartości: English, Polish, German, French, Spanish, Italian — inna wartość zostanie odrzucona przez API. Pomiń pole (lub []), gdy user nie wspomniał o języku."New value: +"Only when the user explicitly asks for a specific specialist language (e.g. 'a Polish-speaking designer'). Allowed values: English, Polish, German, French, Spanish, Italian — any other value is rejected by the API. Omit the field (or []) when the user did not mention a language." - changed
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Domyślnie 10, zwiększ do 20 przy słabych wynikach lub gdy user prosi o więcej opcji (max 20)."New value: +"Default 10, raise to 20 for weak results or when the user asks for more options (max 20)." - changed
Input schema / properties / query / descriptionPrevious value: -"Rola i umiejętności specjalisty, MAKS. 12 słów, naturalny język — nie pełne zdanie opisujące problem usera. Po angielsku, jeśli to możliwe (szybsza odpowiedź i lepsze trafienia niż w innych językach). Dobrze: 'Senior Stripe developer', 'Professional logo designer', 'Experienced UX designer for mobile apps'. Źle: 'I need someone who can help me with branding and visual identity design' (pełne zdanie zamiast roli), 'Full-stack developer with microservices architecture experience' (za dużo naraz sklejonej specyfiki). Gdy wynik słaby (<3 trafień lub same 'Alternative fit'), ponawiaj ze stopniowo prostszym/szerszym query zamiast dopytywać usera, np. 'Senior mobile app developer for fintech startup' → 'Mobile app developer' → 'App developer' → 'Mobile development'; albo 'GDPR compliance lawyer for healthcare startup' → 'GDPR lawyer' → 'Data protection lawyer' → 'Lawyer'."New value: +"The specialist's role and skills, MAX 12 words, natural language — not a full sentence describing the user's problem. In English if possible (faster response and better hits than other languages). Good: 'Senior Stripe developer', 'Professional logo designer', 'Experienced UX designer for mobile apps'. Bad: 'I need someone who can help me with branding and visual identity design' (full sentence instead of a role), 'Full-stack developer with microservices architecture experience' (too much glued-together specificity at once). When results are weak (<3 hits or only 'Alternative fit'), retry with a progressively simpler/broader query instead of asking the user, e.g. 'Senior mobile app developer for fintech startup' → 'Mobile app developer' → 'App developer' → 'Mobile development'; or 'GDPR compliance lawyer for healthcare startup' → 'GDPR lawyer' → 'Data protection lawyer' → 'Lawyer'."
6 tool updates
- First observed
cancel_task - First observed
create_task - First observed
get_task_repo_files - First observed
get_task_result - First observed
get_task_status - First observed
search_specialists
Related MCP Connectors
Delegate tasks to vetted human experts - research, writing, analysis, and data work.
Let your AI agent hire a human for tasks it can't do — first post free.
Hire specialists by the hour — search, schedule, and pay via MCP protocol.
Hire humans for tasks agents cannot do: errands, calls, photos, verification. Escrowed, verified.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceLets AI agents natively discover and hire human experts for tasks they can't do themselves, such as research, verification, and expert calls.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceDelegates real-world digital tasks to vetted humans directly from AI chat. Provides tools to get quotes, post tasks, and check status with escrow protection.25 npmMIT
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceHire specialists by the hour — search, schedule, and pay via MCP protocol.351MIT

humanforaiofficial
AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to hire real human operators for tasks requiring physical presence, human perception, or judgment, such as verification, testing, data collection, and physical-world tasks.462 npm1MIT
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.