Skip to main content
Glama

parabol

by io.usefulapi

Create a task

create_task
Destructive

MUTATES Parabol data: create a task on a team. Required: teamId and status (active|stuck|done|future). Provide plaintextContent for the task text (and/or content, which is a stringified TipTap/ProseMirror JSON document). Optionally assign to a userId or link to a meetingId/discussionId. Parabol GraphQL: createTask(newTask, area). Requires TASKS_WRITE.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
areaNoOptional AreaEnum context for the task (e.g. 'teamDash', 'meeting').
fieldsNoAdditional documented GraphQL input fields to send verbatim in this mutation's input (merged OVER the typed fields above).
statusNoTask status (TaskStatusEnum). Defaults to 'active'.
teamIdYesThe team id to create the task on (required).
userIdNoAssign the task to this user id.
contentNoRich-text content as a stringified TipTap/ProseMirror JSON document.
meetingIdNoLink the task to this meeting id.
sortOrderNoSort order (Float).
discussionIdNoLink the task to this discussion id (meeting thread).
plaintextContentNoPlain-text task content.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explicitly saying "MUTATES Parabol data" and requiring TASKS_WRITE. It also clarifies how plaintextContent and content relate, which helps the agent understand what will be sent. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the mutation warning, and packs required/optional fields, content formats, GraphQL endpoint, and permission into a few sentences. It is slightly dense and contains the status-required inaccuracy, but overall it is well structured.

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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description plus rich input schema cover the key invocation details: required context, optional links, content types, and permission. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, but annotations and schema carry enough of the burden.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics about plaintextContent versus content and optional linking fields, but it also inaccurately says status is required when the schema lists it as optional with a default. This reliability issue keeps it at baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's job: "create a task on a team" and explicitly flags it as a Parabol data mutation. It is easily distinguished from siblings like update_task or list_tasks by the verb and resource.

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?

It gives direct usage context: required teamId, status values, optional userId/meetingId/discussionId links, and the TASKS_WRITE permission requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives like update_task for existing tasks, but the create/update distinction is clear.

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

All parabol toolsInspect
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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: get_/list_ tools are clearly separate read paths, create_/update_/start_/add_ tools map to distinct mutations, and the two escape hatches are explicitly labeled. Even near neighbors like list_meetings and list_active_meetings are unambiguous.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent pattern: list_/get_ for reads, create_/update_/start_ for mutations, with plural nouns for collections and singular for single resources. Minor deviations like add_comment, invite_to_team, and the parabol_* escape hatches prevent a perfect score.

Tool Count3/5

With 21 tools, the server sits in the 16-25 range that feels heavy for an MCP surface. The breadth is somewhat justified because Parabol spans organizations, teams, meetings, tasks, and comments, but many tools are list/get variants of the same core entities.

Completeness3/5

Core read and write flows exist for teams, organizations, meetings, tasks, and comments, but there are notable lifecycle gaps such as no delete_task, no reflection update/delete, and no meeting end/update mutations. The parabol_graphql and parabol_query escape hatches help work around these gaps but do not make the curated surface fully complete.

Resources