mcp-agent-hub

create_task

Creates a task for agent coordination; leave the assignee empty to place it in the open pool where subagents can claim it.

Instructions

创建任务（不指定负责人则进入 open 池，供子代理 claim_task 认领）。

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>"
    },
    "name": "create_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No
`agent`	No
`title`	Yes
`assignee`	No
`priority`	No
`parent_id`	No
`description`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the non-obvious open-pool side effect of omitting an assignee, which is the single most important behavior here. It says nothing about defaults (priority=5, agent, tags, parent_id) or what identifiers are returned, leaving mutation semantics partly opaque.

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?

One parenthetical sentence, front-loaded with the action and the key conditional. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but for a 7-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage the description is far too thin — an agent cannot infer what priority, parent_id, or agent do. Only the assignee branch is covered.

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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description is the only source of meaning. It explains only the assignee/负责人 dimension and says nothing about priority, tags, agent, parent_id, or description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (创建任务) and adds a genuine scope distinction: omitting an assignee routes the task into an open pool claimable by sub-agents. It names claim_task as the consumer of that pool, so an agent can tell this apart from at least one sibling; it does not differentiate itself from dispatch_task or update_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?

Provides a concrete conditional routing rule (no assignee → open pool → claim_task), which is exactly the when-to-use information an agent needs. It stops short of stating when an agent should instead use dispatch_task to assign directly.

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