Create a new project in a workspace. Returns the created project. Subject to plan-based project count limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Project name | |
| color | No | Hex color (e.g. #3b82f6). Defaults to blue. | |
| endDate | No | YYYY-MM-DD. Optional. | |
| startDate | No | YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to today. | |
| description | No | ||
| workspaceId | Yes | Workspace ID (UUID) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value and plan-based count limits, which is useful, but it omits permission requirements, idempotency, or error behavior when limits are exceeded. For a create tool, mutation is inherent, and the added constraints are valuable but not exhaustive.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler. The plan-limit note is valuable and earns its place.
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 six-parameter create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides key return-value information and a significant constraint (plan limits). The schema covers parameter semantics, making the description sufficiently complete for tool selection and invocation.
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 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents; it only adds a global plan-limit caveat.
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 the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'a new project in a workspace,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_task and create_milestone. It also states it returns the created project, adding precision.
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 implies when to use the tool (when creating a project rather than a task or milestone) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The plan-based limit is a caveat rather than usage guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair, such as create_task vs update_task vs set_task_progress. Even the two task-modifying tools have clearly separated concerns: one updates arbitrary fields, the other specifically updates progress with auto-derived status.
All tool names follow the verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_, list_, delete_, get_, add_, set_, update_). The only compound verb, reschedule_and_propagate, still fits the pattern and reads predictably.
15 tools is within the well-scoped 3-15 range, and each tool covers a meaningful operation for a project management domain. No redundant or trivial tools are present.
Tasks have full CRUD plus progress and dependency management, but milestones lack update/delete operations, and dependencies only support addition (no removal). These are notable gaps that may require workarounds in some workflows.
