Skip to main content
Glama

Morpha

by ai.morphareels

create_project

Create a new project and return its server-minted id. The id is an opaque v4 UUID assigned automatically — you never choose or name it; refer to the project by its name. By default this mints a fresh BLANK project (empty canvas, no layers) — creation is independent from cloning. Pass fromProjectId ONLY when you want to clone: the new project then copies that project's JSON, uploaded assets, and uploaded clips, and — like duplicate_project — FOLLOWS THE SOURCE'S workspace by default (cloning a team project stays in that team; a blank project is personal). Pass workspaceId (from list_workspaces) to place it in a specific workspace instead — requires an edit-capable role there — or null to force it into the caller's personal space. If the clone source lives in a workspace you can only view, the call FAILS rather than silently making a personal copy — pass workspaceId:null for a personal copy. The user's editor session won't auto-refresh — they'll need to reload to see the new project in the picker.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoRecommended human-readable label, shown verbatim in the editor's project picker (the only user-facing handle for the project). Omit and the picker falls back to the opaque id.
workspaceIdNoWhere to place the project. Omit to FOLLOW THE SOURCE (a clone inherits its source's workspace; a blank project is personal). A workspace id (from list_workspaces) places it there — requires an edit-capable role. null forces the caller's personal space.
fromProjectIdNoOptional id of an existing project to CLONE (copies its JSON + uploaded assets + clips). Omit to create a fresh blank project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It covers return value, workspace placement rules, role requirements, failure on view-only clone sources, and the need for the user to reload the editor—all important behavioral details.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action, but contains some redundancy (e.g., repeating the 'follows the source' rule for workspaceId and fromProjectId). It is dense and useful, though slightly verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers inputs, return value, failure modes, permissions, and post-creation behavior. It leaves no significant gap in understanding how to invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All three parameters are described in the schema with rich semantics: name is a recommended label, workspaceId defines placement with null forcing personal space, and fromProjectId enables cloning. The description adds context beyond the schema, such as fallback to opaque id and what cloning copies.

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 project and returns its server-minted id, distinguishing blank creation from cloning. It references related concepts like duplicate_project and list_workspaces, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly explains when to use fromProjectId, how workspaceId determines placement, and the default behavior for both cloning and blank projects. It also notes failure conditions and the need for edit-capable roles, giving complete usage guidance.

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

All Morpha toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set has several clusters that overlap conceptually: add_keyframe/add_keyframes/set_keyframes_batch, move_band/move_layer/shift_group/set_group_window, and fade_layer/set_layer_transition/set_layer_visible all target similar actions. However, each tool's description is distinct and detailed enough for an agent to disambiguate after careful reading. The sheer volume of 95 tools still creates meaningful selection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_, remove_, set_, list_, rename_, create_, delete_), which is predictable and readable. Minor inconsistencies exist: plural variants like add_keyframes vs add_keyframe, mixed specificity like remove_keyframe vs remove_color_keyframe, and a few oddballs like reid_project and clip_processing_status. Overall the pattern is strong and helps navigation.

Tool Count2/5

95 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and will overwhelm agents; even a comprehensive video editor could consolidate keyframe batch operations, overlay/track manipulations, and page/group window controls. Many tools are highly specific (reid_project, safe_zones, move_band) and place burden on the agent to pick among near-synonym verbs. While the broad domain justifies many operations, this count is excessive for a coherent tool surface.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers a broad editing lifecycle: layers, keyframes, text, captions, audio, pages, groups, versions, projects, workspaces, and collections, including batch operations. However, there is no MCP tool to render/export the final MP4 (explicitly delegated to an SDK) and no upload_video tool for bringing in a clip file, leaving major end-to-end gaps. For the stated purpose of building and editing videos, these are significant omissions that force agents to stop short of delivery.

Resources