Alcoven

Start a project

create_project

Starts a new Alcoven project when the person asks to start, create or make one, or to keep this work as a project. It takes the project's name. They manage it and are the only one on it, and their sign-in reaches it at once. It goes in their team, or in a new Free team of their own if they have none. It holds none of this work yet.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The project's name, in the person's words.
`team`	No	The team it goes in, by name, when the person is on several.
`again`	No	True when the person wants a second project with the same name as one they have.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No
`team`	No
`clone`	No
`teams`	No
`project`	No
`started`	Yes
`existing`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the caller becomes sole owner/manager, access is immediate, the project lands in their team or an auto-created Free team, and crucially it "holds none of this work yet" — i.e. creation does not migrate existing work. It does not describe the failure mode on duplicate names or what the response contains.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the invocation trigger first and side effects after. Some phrasing is oddly compressed ("their sign-in reaches it at once", "They manage it and are the only one on it"), which costs a little clarity without adding bulk.

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 three-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers triggers, ownership, default team placement, and the important fact that no existing work is transferred. The only notable omission is behavior on duplicate names, which the `again` parameter hints at but the prose does not explain.

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%, so the baseline is 3 regardless. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema for the team parameter by explaining the default (their team, or a new Free team if they have none), but says nothing about the `again` flag and only restates `name` as "the project's name".

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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 ("Starts a new Alcoven project") and the word "new" implicitly separates it from the sibling open_project. It is clear what is produced, though it never names open_project as the contrast case explicitly.

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?

It gives concrete invocation triggers: when the person asks to start, create, or make a project, or asks to keep the current work as a project. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. open_project, add_document) for the case where the project already exists.

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

All Alcoven 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?