Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
COR MCP Server

COR MCP Server

by fxckcode
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

cor_create_task

Create a new task by providing its title, project, description, deadline, and priority.

Instructions

Create a new task.

Args: data: Task data (title, projectId, description, deadline, priority, etc.)

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": {
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "cor_create_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create a new task', implying a mutation, but fails to disclose side effects, idempotency, required authentication, or potential errors. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that immediately state the purpose and list parameter content. Every word earns its place without fluff or repetition.

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 tool with one free-form parameter and no annotations, the description adequately conveys the purpose and parameter structure. However, it lacks details on validation rules, return values (though output schema exists), and behavioral constraints, leaving moderate gaps for the agent.

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?

The input schema defines 'data' as a free-form object with no properties, offering zero guidance. The description lists example fields (title, projectId, description, deadline, priority), which significantly compensates for the sparse schema. However, it could further clarify field formats or required vs optional fields.

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 'new task', which is specific and unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like 'cor_update_task' or 'cor_delete_task' due to the distinct operation and resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use 'cor_search_tasks' instead, or prerequisites like required permissions. The agent receives no context on usage scenarios.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools