fcop-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Write Task

write_task

Create a new task file with FCoP-compliant frontmatter, assigning a dated filename and placing it in the recipient's inbox for claiming.

Instructions

Create a new task file (v3: _lifecycle/inbox/; v2: fcop/tasks/).

The library assigns a filename of the form TASK-YYYYMMDD-NNN-{SENDER}-to-{RECIPIENT}.md and writes a FCoP-compliant YAML frontmatter + markdown body. In a v3 project the task is placed in _lifecycle/inbox/ so the recipient can claim_task it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	Task body in Markdown.
`sender`	Yes	Sender role code (uppercase).
`subject`	Yes	One-line subject written to the ``subject:`` frontmatter field.
`priority`	No	FCoP priority. Accepts ``P0`` / ``P1`` / ``P2`` / ``P3`` (canonical) or the legacy aliases ``urgent`` / ``high`` / ``normal`` / ``low``. Default: ``P2``.	P2
`recipient`	Yes	Recipient role code (uppercase). May use the slot form ``ROLE.D1`` for per-slot targeting or ``TEAM`` for broadcast.
`references`	No	Comma-separated task filenames this task refers back to (for ``references:`` frontmatter field).
`risk_level`	No	Operation risk level (per ADR-0024). One of ``low`` / ``medium`` / ``high`` / ``irreversible``. Default: ``medium``. ``high`` and ``irreversible`` will automatically require a ``needs_human`` review gate. Leave empty to accept the default (``medium``).
`thread_key`	No	Optional thread identifier for linking this task to an ongoing conversation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.2.4May 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does disclose file creation, filename generation, frontmatter/body writing, and v2/v3 placement. It does not cover overwriting behavior, required project setup, permissions, or failure modes, but the core side-effect is visible.

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?

The description is efficient, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence contributes useful context: path, filename, and downstream claim workflow. There is no filler, though the v3/v2 path details could potentially be more compact.

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?

The description covers the important context for a creation tool: what file is written, where it is placed, the filename shape, and the downstream claim step. Given the full input schema, an output schema, and no annotations, this is largely complete, though the relationship to create_task remains a gap.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds little beyond stating the generated filename uses sender and recipient, which is enough to meet the baseline but no more.

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?

The description clearly states that the tool creates a new task file and gives concrete details about paths and filename format. However, it does not differentiate write_task from the closely named sibling create_task, so it is clear but lacks sibling discrimination.

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?

The description implies usage context by explaining where the task file is placed and that the recipient can claim it. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over create_task or other task lifecycle tools, nor does it give exclusions, so guidance remains implicit rather than direct.

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