ZeroHrs MCP server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create User-Owned Zero Task

create_user_owned_task

Create a user-owned task in ZeroHrs with title, description, status, priority, and due date. Use when a user explicitly asks to save a task.

Instructions

OpenClaw-compatible Zero task creation. Call only after the user explicitly asks to save the task.

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": {
      "description": "<description>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_user_owned_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes
`status`	No
`due_date`	No
`priority`	No
`description`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.3.0Aug 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful context that user consent is required and that the task is OpenClaw-compatible, but it does not disclose persistence behavior, ownership semantics, 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 very concise and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a key trigger condition. It is appropriately short, though the cryptic 'OpenClaw-compatible Zero task' phrasing sacrifices some explanatory value.

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?

Given five parameters, no output schema, and a sibling create_task that could be confused with this tool, the description is incomplete. It gives one useful usage condition but omits required field semantics, optional field behavior, ownership implications, and any differentiation from create_task.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning, but it mentions no parameters at all. With five parameters including required title and description, plus optional status, due_date, and priority, the description provides zero guidance on how to fill them.

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 clear verb and resource: it creates a 'Zero task' and is tied to saving a task after user request. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling create_task or explain what 'Zero' means, so it is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 provides an explicit usage condition: 'Call only after the user explicitly asks to save the task.' This gives clear context for when to invoke it, though it does not mention alternatives like create_task or state when not to use this tool.

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