Aurora

Create project

create_project

Create a full-stack web app that runs outside the chat.

The app has a server, a backend for saved data, user accounts, and APIs, a live preview URL, its own GitHub repo, and publishing to a public URL. It starts from a TanStack Start + React + Tailwind template, or from existing code passed in files. Fits when the user wants an app other people can use, data that persists, or a real website. Returns the project name and the preview URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Project name (optional, generated from the prompt if omitted)
`files`	No	Optional starting code, written as the project's first commit. Each item is {"path": "app/routes/index.tsx", "content": "<full file>"}. The home page is app/routes/index.tsx, components go in app/components/, and imports must be relative (all conventions: get_started).
`prompt`	Yes	Short description of the app the user wants

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 27, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / files

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Optional starting code, written as the project's first commit. Each item is {\"path\": \"app/routes/index.tsx\", \"content\": \"<full file>\"}. The home page is app/routes/index.tsx, components go in app/components/, and imports must be relative (all conventions: get_started)."
+}

First observedSep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With annotations only indicating readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does so well: it states side effects (GitHub repo creation, publishing to a public URL), the starting template, and the option to seed from existing files. It returns the project name and preview URL, which is also helpful behaviorally.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and product scope, followed by concrete capabilities, a usage fit statement, and a return-value note. Every sentence adds distinct information; none are filler. It is detailed yet compact given the complexity of the tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a complex creation tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential decision points: what gets created, when to use it, how existing code can be supplied, and what is returned. It does not go into limits like timeouts or preconditions, but the rich schema plus output schema make the description sufficiently complete for invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds extra context by explaining that the app 'starts from a TanStack Start + React + Tailwind template, or from existing code passed in files,' which complements the files parameter meaningfully. It also signals that a short prompt is the main input, and clarifies the return payload, giving semantic weight beyond the raw JSON schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a full-stack web app that runs outside the chat.' It enumerates exactly what is created (server, backend, user accounts, APIs, preview URL, GitHub repo, publishing) and distinguishes this from sibling tools like deploy, start_dev_server, or apply_changes by establishing that this is the full project creation entry point.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear when-to-use context: 'Fits when the user wants an app other people can use, data that persists, or a real website.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the use-case framing plus the sibling list is enough to route an agent correctly.

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

All Aurora tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?