ops-platform-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_task

Create a new task on a project with required title and project, optional assignee and due date. Task starts in 'todo' state; update status later if needed.

Instructions

Create a new task on a project. Use this when asked to add a work item, to-do, or action item. project (required) and assignee (optional) accept a name, a unique name fragment, or an id; due_date is optional in YYYY-MM-DD format. New tasks always start in the 'todo' state — use update_task_status afterwards if a different status is needed. Returns the created task including its id; mention the id so the user can refer to the task later. The task is created in the system selected by OPS_TASK_BACKEND (the mock platform by default, or ClickUp).

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": "<project>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`assignee`	No
`due_date`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses default 'todo' state, return value with id, and backend dependency (OPS_TASK_BACKEND). Could add more on permissions or side effects.

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?

Front-loaded with key information. Some extra details (like OPS_TASK_BACKEND) are relevant but could be more concise. Still, every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, but description covers return value (created task with id) and backend context. Missing details on error handling or pagination, but adequate for a creation tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds significant meaning: explains project/assignee accept name/fragment/id, due_date format, and which parameters are required/optional.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new task on a project' and lists concrete use cases ('work item, to-do, action item'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_task_status.

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?

Clearly says when to use the tool and mentions update_task_status for changing status afterward. Lacks explicit 'do not use when' but provides sufficient context.

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

Deploy Server