Atwork

Create Task

task.create

Create a task. Required: title. The task is created as an item in a tasksheet: pass sheetId, or omit it to use the user's default task sheet. assignee (a member name), status (an option label like 'In Progress'), and dueDate (ISO 8601) are optional and resolved to the sheet's real values — an unrecognised value returns an error listing the valid options. Returns {taskId, sheetId, spaceId}.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes
`status`	No	Status by its option label, e.g. 'To Do' / 'In Progress'
`dueDate`	No	ISO 8601 date/datetime
`sheetId`	No	Tasksheet to create the task in. Omit to use the user's default task sheet.
`assignee`	No	Assignee by name (resolved to a member); omit to leave unassigned

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`taskId`	Yes	Id of the created task item
`sheetId`	Yes	Task sheet the task was created in
`spaceId`	Yes	Space of that sheet; null for a sheet outside a space

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 4, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / spaceId / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / spaceId / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
```

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 27, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / sheetId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Task sheet the task was created in",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / spaceId

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Space of that sheet; null for a sheet outside a space"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "taskId"
-]New value: +[
+  "taskId",
+  "sheetId",
+  "spaceId"
+]

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent), the description discloses that status and assignee values are resolved against the sheet's real values and that an unrecognised value returns an error listing valid options — genuinely useful failure-mode context. It does not mention permission requirements or that non-idempotent retries could create duplicates, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: required field first, then the sheetId branch, then optional fields and return keys. The trailing return-value sentence is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but nothing else is wasteful.

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 five-parameter create tool with annotations and an output schema, this covers required input defaults, value resolution, and error behaviour. Missing only side-effect details an agent might want: permission scope, whether duplicate titles are allowed, and confirmation that no other side effects occur.

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 already 80%, and the description still adds meaning: assignee is a member name that gets resolved, status is an option label resolved to the sheet's values, dueDate is ISO 8601, and mis-resolution produces an error with valid options. This goes beyond the per-field schema text rather than repeating it.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Create a task") and the rest clarifies that the task lands as an item in a tasksheet. It is clearly distinct from read-side siblings like task.read, though it never explicitly contrasts with near-neighbours such as item.create_humanized or sheet.convert_to_task.

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 states the selection rule for sheetId: pass one, or omit to use the user's default sheet. That is clear conditional guidance, but there is no statement of when not to use this tool or which sibling to prefer for bulk/item creation.

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

All Atwork 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.

Resources

Need Help?