@createworker/mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create task

task_create

Create an asynchronous task for a worker. Use task_get or task_wait to retrieve results; writes require approval unless auto-executed.

Instructions

Create a task for a worker. Runs asynchronously — then poll with task_get or use task_wait. Writes stay approval-gated unless the worker auto-executes.

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": {
      "workerId": "<workerId>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "task_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	short task title
`payload`	No
`workerId`	Yes	the worker id
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool 'runs asynchronously' and that 'writes stay approval-gated unless the worker auto-executes', revealing key behaviors. Missing details on error conditions or permissions.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding value. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by behavioral notes. 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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, async, no output schema), the description covers async nature and approval gating but omits the return value format (e.g., task ID) and lacks details on error handling. Adequate but with notable gaps.

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 coverage is only 50% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond the schema; for the undocumented 'payload' and 'description' parameters, it provides no guidance. A low coverage demands compensatory description, which is absent.

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 'Create a task for a worker', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like task_get, task_cancel, and task_wait, which cover different operations.

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?

The description advises to 'poll with task_get or use task_wait' after the async call, offering a follow-up strategy. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like task_cancel or when not to use it.

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