CVAT MCP

cvat_create_task

Create a new annotation task in CVAT by specifying name and labels, then attach data files separately.

Instructions

Create a CVAT task using POST /api/tasks. Use cvat_attach_task_data afterward to upload images or videos.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "labels": "<labels>"
    },
    "name": "cvat_create_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`labels`	Yes
`project_id`	No
`assignee_id`	No
`segment_size`	No
`overlap`	No
`subset`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the HTTP method and endpoint, omitting whether the tool is idempotent, requires authentication, or has 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no wasted words, but underspecified. Efficient in length but lacks necessary detail to be fully helpful.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fails to provide enough context for the agent to use the tool correctly. Missing details on required parameter formats (e.g., labels structure) and behavior.

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 has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning to any parameter, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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?

Clearly states 'Create a CVAT task' and specifies the HTTP method and endpoint. Differentiates from sibling tool cvat_attach_task_data by directing to use it afterward.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use cvat_attach_task_data after creation for data upload, providing clear context on workflow. Does not include exclusions or when not to use, but the guidance is helpful.

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

Deploy Server