Skip to main content
Glama

create_task

Create a new task and deliver it to the recipient's inbox. Specify sender, recipient, subject, body, and optional priority, thread, references, or risk level.

Instructions

Create a new task and place it in the inbox (v3) or tasks folder (v2).

This is the canonical FCoP v3 spec §8 L1 entry-point for task creation — functionally identical to :func:write_task but named to match the spec. In a v3 project the task lands in _lifecycle/inbox/ so the recipient can claim_task it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
senderYesSender role code (uppercase).
recipientYesRecipient role code (uppercase). May use the slot form ``ROLE.D1`` or ``TEAM`` for broadcast.
subjectYesOne-line subject for the ``subject:`` frontmatter field.
bodyYesTask body in Markdown.
priorityNo``P0`` / ``P1`` / ``P2`` / ``P3`` (or legacy aliases). Default: ``P2``.P2
thread_keyNoOptional thread identifier.
referencesNoComma-separated task filenames for ``references:`` field.
risk_levelNo``low`` / ``medium`` / ``high`` / ``irreversible``. Leave empty to accept the default (``medium``).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the routing behavior (task placement in inbox/tasks folder) and the ability for the recipient to claim the task. However, it does not cover side effects, permissions needed, idempotency, or error states, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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: three sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence conveys the core action, the second provides spec context and relation to sibling, and the third gives routing details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 4 required, full schema, output schema present), the description provides sufficient high-level context: the canonical spec role and routing behavior. It does not explain parameters (already in schema) or return values (output schema exists). It could be more complete by mentioning prerequisite checks or error conditions, but for a creation tool this is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the input schema already provides. The parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 tool creates a new task and places it in a specific location (inbox for v3, tasks folder for v2). It distinguishes itself from the sibling write_task by noting it is the canonical FCoP v3 spec entry-point, though functionally identical.

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 context on when to use the tool (as the spec-defined entry-point) and mentions the alternative write_task. It explains where the task lands (inbox for v3, tasks folder for v2) and that the recipient can claim it, but does not explicitly list when not to use it.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/joinwell52-AI/FCoP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server