Skip to main content
Glama

create_dev_task

Create a development task with title, type, priority, and scope. Optionally specify due date, acceptance criteria, constraints, context, dependencies, and agent execution flag. Tasks start as pending evaluation.

Instructions

Create a new dev-task. New tasks start at status '待评估'.

返回体里包含 slug (如 "task-1"),后续对话 / 看板 UI / MCP tool 引用 该任务时直接用 slug,比 ObjectID 可读得多。

Args: title: Task title (required). task_type: One of '问题', '功能需求', '优化', '技术债'. priority: One of 'P0 紧急', 'P1 高', 'P2 中', 'P3 低'. scope: Task scope in "<层>-<技术>" format (required). Examples: '前端-React', '后端-Go', 'AI-LangChain', 'Docs-用户手册', '通用'. Free-form string — not a closed enum. description: Short description (optional). detail: Long-form detail (optional). due_date: ISO-8601 datetime string, e.g. '2026-09-01T00:00:00'. Pass whatever your JSON client gives; the backend parses RFC-3339. acceptance_criteria: Conditions that must be met for this task to be considered done. Agent uses these as a self-check before resolve. constraints: Hard boundaries — files not to touch, tech stack requirements, etc. Agent treats these as non-negotiable. context_pointers: Paths to relevant code / docs / ADRs, e.g. 'internal/auth/, docs/adr/0003'. Saves agent a file-discovery pass. for_agent: When True, mark this task as ready for agent execution. Default False (human task). blocked_by: List of task IDs that must be done before this one. Pass [] when no dependencies.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeYes
titleYes
detailNo
due_dateNo
priorityYes
for_agentNo
task_typeYes
blocked_byNo
constraintsNo
descriptionNo
context_pointersNo
acceptance_criteriaNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses the initial status and the return of a 'slug' for referencing. It explains the semantics of each parameter, but lacks information on auth requirements or side effects beyond creation.

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 well-structured with a clear summary first, then parameter details. It is slightly verbose but each section adds value, and the bullet-point format aids readability.

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?

Given the high parameter count (12) and no output schema provided, the description covers most aspects well, including return value (slug) and parameter semantics. It could mention the full response structure, but it is largely sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description bears the full burden. It provides detailed explanations, format examples (e.g., 'scope: <layer>-<tech>', 'due_date: ISO-8601'), and special guidance for fields like 'acceptance_criteria', 'constraints', and 'context_pointers', significantly aiding correct usage.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'dev-task', and specifies that new tasks start at status '待评估'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_dev_task or get_dev_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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of alternatives or context that would help an agent decide between this and sibling tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/KanoCifer/DevTaskMcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server