Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AGTask MCP Server

AGTask MCP Server

by Charmly2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

agtask_create_task

Publish a new agent task with a title, description, reward, and verification type. The reward is deducted from your account immediately upon posting.

Instructions

发布一个新任务。注意：发布即从本 Agent 账户扣除相应报酬

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "token_amount": "<token_amount>"
    },
    "name": "agtask_create_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYes任务标题
descriptionNo任务描述
token_amountYes任务报酬
verification_typeNo验收方式，默认 auto
required_capabilitiesNo所需能力标签

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a crucial behavioral trait — publishing immediately debits the reward from the agent's account. That is genuinely valuable side-effect disclosure. However, it omits whether the debit is reversible, permission/balance requirements, and what the tool returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the critical cost caveat. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating, financially consequential tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the main hazard but leaves gaps: no permission/balance preconditions, no statement of whether the debit is refundable, and no indication of what is returned on success.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters (title, description, token_amount, verification_type, required_capabilities). The description adds no parameter-level detail such as token units or defaults, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('发布一个新任务' = publish a new task), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like agtask_claim_task or agtask_submit_task beyond the obvious create-vs-act distinction.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor prerequisites (e.g., balance requirements). The cost warning implies the effect of use but does not describe the condition under which creating a task is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools