baton_task_create
검증 가능한 작업 그래프에 task를 만든다. depends_on은 선행 task 목록이다.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| api_key | Yes | ||
| room_id | No | ||
| assignee | No | ||
| depends_on | No |
baton
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies mutation (create) but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or idempotency. Missing details on how room_id and assignee affect behavior.
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?
The description is very concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, constraints on parameters, or the effect on the work graph.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains 'depends_on' as predecessor tasks, leaving title, api_key, room_id, and assignee unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates a task in a verifiable work graph, specifying the verb and resource. It also explains the depends_on parameter as predecessor tasks, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like baton_task_update or baton_task_link.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where the tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes due to detailed descriptions, but some potential overlaps exist (e.g., baton_revoke, baton_close_room, baton_leave). The complex domain is well-differentiated overall.
Naming Consistency3/5
The baton_ and spider_ prefixes provide consistency, but within baton_ there is a mix of verb-only, noun, and verb_noun patterns (e.g., baton_approve vs baton_account). Not fully predictable.
Tool Count2/5
With 45 tools, the server is very large and may overwhelm agents. While the domain is complex, many tools could potentially be consolidated, making the count excessive.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers account, room, handoff, verification, cost, memory, hub, task, and spider domains thoroughly. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool to list rooms), but core workflows are well-supported.