delega-mcp

create_recurring_task

Create a recurring task template so the scheduler can spawn linked task instances on daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly rules, with optional interval, timezone, priority, and assignment settings.

Instructions

Create a recurring task template. The hosted scheduler spawns normal task instances from this template and links them with source_recurrence_id.

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": {
      "content": "<content>",
      "rule_type": "<rule_type>"
    },
    "name": "create_recurring_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`labels`	No	Labels for spawned tasks
`content`	Yes	Task title/content for spawned instances
`interval`	No	Rule interval, default 1
`priority`	No	Priority 1-4
`timezone`	No	IANA timezone, e.g. America/Chicago
`rule_type`	Yes	Recurrence rule type
`anchor_day`	No	Day of month for monthly/yearly rules
`project_id`	No	Optional project ID
`description`	No	Optional task description for spawned instances
`next_due_at`	No	Optional ISO timestamp for first due occurrence
`anchor_month`	No	Month for yearly rules
`skip_if_open`	No	Skip spawning and roll forward while a prior instance is open
`anchor_weekday`	No	Weekday for weekly rules, Sunday=0
`assigned_to_agent_id`	No	Optional assignee for spawned tasks

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.19.0Sep 11, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / assigned_to_agent_id / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / assigned_to_agent_id / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedInput schema / properties / project_id / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / project_id / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
```

Addedv1.13.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the core behavior — a hosted scheduler spawns real task instances from the template and tags them with source_recurrence_id — which goes beyond the schema. However it omits important operational traits for a recurrence tool: whether the first instance spawns immediately or after one interval, what happens on delete_recurrence, and how invalid rule/anchor combinations are handled.

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 sentences, nothing wasted, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the behavioral detail. The second sentence earns its place by explaining the spawning/linking model that the schema alone does not convey.

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?

For a 14-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description explains the creation model but leaves scheduling semantics unaddressed — first-occurrence timing, the interaction of rule_type with anchor_weekday/anchor_day/anchor_month, and skip_if_open edge behavior are all left to the agent. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100% across all 14 parameters, so the schema already documents content, rule_type, interval, anchors, timezone, skip_if_open, etc. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Create a recurring task template.' That is clearly distinct in concept from create_task or update_recurrence. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the template-vs-instance framing makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you need a repeating task rather than a one-off. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to create_task vs update_recurrence, so the guidance stays at the minimum-viable level.

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