Create a new project
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": {
"title": "<title>"
},
"name": "createProject"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| status | No | ||
| clientName | No | ||
| clientEmail | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails to do so. It does not disclose required permissions, side effects (e.g. whether a client record is created from clientName/clientEmail), default status values, or error conditions. Only the bare implication of mutation is conveyed.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but at this size it is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing in it fails to earn its place; there simply is not enough of it.
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 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, one flat sentence is entirely inadequate. An agent cannot determine input expectations, side effects, or what the call returns.
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 0% across 5 parameters, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. It does not explain what status accepts, whether clientName and clientEmail are tied together, or the role of description.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Create a new project"), so the basic operation is unambiguous. However, it adds nothing beyond the tool name createProject and makes no attempt to distinguish the operation from siblings like listProjects or getClientView, so it is barely above a restatement.
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?
There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the write counterpart to listProjects.
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.