Skip to main content
Glama

create_task

Create structured tasks with Jira-like IDs, dependencies, priorities, and metadata to manage project workflows and execution order.

Instructions

Creates a new task with YAML frontmatter metadata. Uses Jira-like IDs (e.g., AUTH-001, API-042) for stable references. Supports dependencies, priorities, estimates, due dates, and tags. Agents can determine execution order by checking dependencies and priorities.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesThe title of the task (e.g., "Implement OAuth authentication", "Fix login bug").
projectYesProject/Epic identifier used in the task ID (e.g., "AUTH", "API", "FRONTEND"). Will be uppercased. The task ID will be {PROJECT}-{NNN}.
descriptionNoDetailed description of the task. Can include markdown formatting.
ownerNoWho is responsible for this task (e.g., "cursor", "john-doe", "backend-team").
priorityNoPriority level: "P0" (critical/blocker), "P1" (high), "P2" (medium/default), "P3" (low).P2
statusNoCurrent status: "todo" (not started), "in_progress" (being worked on), "blocked" (waiting on something), "review" (needs review), "done" (completed).todo
depends_onNoArray of task IDs this task depends on (e.g., ["AUTH-001", "AUTH-002"]). Task cannot start until dependencies are done.
blocked_byNoArray of task IDs or external blockers (e.g., ["AUTH-003", "waiting-on-api-key"]). Different from depends_on - these are blockers that prevent progress.
estimateNoTime estimate (e.g., "2h", "1d", "3d", "1w"). Use h=hours, d=days, w=weeks.
dueNoDue date in YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g., "2025-01-15").
tagsNoArray of tags for categorization (e.g., ["security", "urgent", "tech-debt", "feature"]).
subtasksNoArray of subtask descriptions. Will be rendered as a checklist in the task.
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the task ID format and that agents can check dependencies/priorities, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires authentication, what happens on duplicate IDs, if there are rate limits, what the return value looks like, or error conditions. For a creation tool with 12 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: creation purpose, ID format, and supported features/agent guidance. Each sentence adds value, though the third sentence could be more focused. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 12 parameters.

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?

For a creation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (return value, error handling), authentication requirements, or system constraints. The mention of YAML frontmatter and agent guidance adds some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral transparency.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing detailed documentation for all 12 parameters. The description adds some context about Jira-like IDs and YAML frontmatter, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 ('creates') and resource ('new task') with specific distinguishing features: 'with YAML frontmatter metadata' and 'Uses Jira-like IDs'. It differentiates from siblings like 'add_to_backlog' or 'update_task' by emphasizing creation of a structured task with specific metadata format.

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 through 'Agents can determine execution order by checking dependencies and priorities', suggesting this tool is for creating structured, dependency-aware tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'add_to_backlog' or 'create_or_update_todo', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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/pouyanafisi/project-mcp'

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