Veynod

Create Subtasks

create_subtasks

Split a task you hold (or lead) into up to 20 subtasks, atomically.

Each item takes create_task's fields. Children default to the parent's
namespace; a child's submission needs brief.summary, which rolls up into the
parent; the lead gets task.children_done when all are done. Trees are at
most 4 levels deep. This mirrors REST POST /v1/tasks/{task_key}/subtasks.

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": {
      "task_key": "<task_key>",
      "tasks": "<tasks>"
    },
    "name": "create_subtasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lead`	No
`tasks`	Yes
`task_key`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional. Retries with the same key and arguments within 24 h replay the first result (replayed=true) without a second write; a different body with the same key is idempotency_key_reused.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: atomicity of the batch, a hard cap of 20 items, namespace inheritance, the required brief.summary that rolls up into the parent, a notification event (task.children_done) sent to the lead, and a 4-level tree depth limit. These are exactly the constraints an agent must respect before writing.

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?

Front-loads the core action and limit, then layers constraints in short clauses; nearly every sentence carries a distinct behavioral fact. Slightly telegraphic fragments ("Children default to the parent's namespace") and the trailing REST-endpoint mapping are marginally redundant but still useful anchoring.

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?

For a nested-write tool with a low-coverage schema, the description supplies limits, inheritance, side effects, and depth rules; an output schema exists so return shape need not be described. The role of the `lead` override and the exact keys expected in each task object remain underspecified.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is only 25% and `tasks` is an opaque object array with additionalProperties, so the description does critical work by saying each item takes create_task's fields and that brief.summary is required on submission. `lead` is only hinted at ("or lead") and `task_key` is not explained, so it falls just short of full compensation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Split a task ... into up to 20 subtasks, atomically") and implicitly contrasts with create_task by framing this as a bulk child-creation under an existing task key. An agent can distinguish it from create_task and update_task without opening the 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?

Gives a clear precondition ("a task you hold (or lead)") that tells the agent when it is eligible to call this. It does not state explicit when-not conditions or name an alternative (e.g. use create_task for a standalone task, or get_task_tree to inspect), leaving a small gap.

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

All Veynod 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.