Create a task for AI agents in a shared task queue, specifying space, title, and optional priority, status, dependencies, and execution details.
Create a task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| space | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| status | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| risk_level | No | ||
| target_ref | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| action_class | No | ||
| dependencies | No | ||
| execution_mode | No | ||
| preferred_agent | No | ||
| required_capabilities | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: nothing about required permissions, what a duplicate call does given idempotentHint=false, or side effects. It does not contradict the annotations, but contributes nothing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence is not conciseness here; it is under-specification. There is no front-loaded intent, scope, or return behavior to justify the brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation anywhere, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent has no basis to supply sensible values for the optional fields or predict the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 13 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full explanatory burden and says nothing about any parameter. Critical fields like space, title, status, priority, action_class, dependencies and required_capabilities are left entirely opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Create a task" names a verb and resource but is essentially a tautological restatement of the tool name with no scope, no distinction from siblings like claim_task or propose_write. It conveys nothing an agent couldn't infer from the name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings (approve_task, claim_task, propose_write, write_document). No prerequisites, no conditions, no alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.