organization_createAUTH REQUIRED; WRITES A NEW SPALA ORGANIZATION FOR THE SIGNED-IN ACCOUNT. Creates an additional company or workspace organization using the supplied name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Human-readable company or workspace name. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| created | Yes | ||
| nextAction | Yes | ||
| organization | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate write and destructive behavior. The description adds context that this is for the signed-in account and creates an 'additional' organization, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the critical auth and write intent, and contains no wasted words.
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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers purpose, auth requirement, and effect. No additional information is necessary.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the name parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description only says 'using the supplied name' without adding extra semantics, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('WRITES'/'Creates') with a clear resource ('Spala organization') and scope ('for the signed-in account', 'additional company or workspace'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_create or spala_start.
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?
The description provides clear context: it is for creating an additional organization for the signed-in account, and notes that auth is required. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the sibling list implies it is the org-creation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but project_connect and project_select are essentially aliases, which introduces ambiguity. Additionally, spala_help and docs_search could overlap, but they are differentiated by scope.
The naming mostly follows a <domain>_<verb> pattern, with some exceptions like spala_help (no verb) and the duplicate project_select. Overall, the pattern is predictable and readable.
16 tools is well-scoped for a public platform that handles accounts, organizations, projects, addons, templates, and documentation. Each tool earns its place without being excessive.
Core workflows like creating and connecting projects are covered, but there are notable gaps: no tools for updating or deleting accounts, organizations, or projects. Also, addons and templates are only listable, missing management operations.