DutyHub MCP Server

create_task

Add a new task to a project. Requires project ID and title; optional fields include description, status, priority, due date, sprint, and parent task.

Instructions

Bir projeye yeni task ekler ('New Task'). project_id ve title zorunludur.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_id`	Yes	Proje UUID (zorunlu)
`title`	Yes	Task başlığı (zorunlu, boş olamaz)
`description`	No
`status`	No	Başlangıç durumu. Varsayılan: pending (Yapılacak)
`priority`	No	low/medium/high/urgent. Varsayılan: medium
`due_date`	No	Son tarih (YYYY-MM-DD veya ISO)
`sprint_id`	No	Opsiyonel sprint UUID
`task_type`	No	Varsayılan: task
`parent_task_id`	No	Alt-task için üst task UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic write operation, omitting behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects like ID generation.

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 concise sentences with no extraneous words; the critical information (action and required fields) is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain return values (e.g., created task ID), validation rules, or relationships to sprints/parent tasks.

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 high (89%), so the baseline is 3. The description repeats that project_id and title are mandatory (already in schema) but adds no extra meaning for other parameters like status, priority, or due_date.

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 action ('adds a new task') and the target resource ('to a project'), with required fields noted, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like update_task or delete_task.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use (when creating a task) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among the 15 sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server