Skip to main content
Glama

Create Project Tool

create-project-tool

Create a new project in the given organization. Subject to the organization's plan quota.

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": {
      "organization_id": "<organization_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create-project-tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesA human-readable name for the project (max 120 characters).
organization_idYesThe numeric id of the organization the project belongs to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 creation. The description contributes one piece of real behavioral context beyond them: the operation is subject to the organization's plan quota, signalling a possible failure mode. It does not say what is returned on success or what error surfaces when the quota is exceeded.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant restatement of the title. The quota note is terse but earns its place as a constraint.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and complete annotation hints, the definition is adequate. It stops short of describing the response (no output schema exists) or the concrete quota/error behavior an agent would need to handle failures.

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 coverage is 100%, so both organization_id and name are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only that the organization is the parent of the project, which is already visible from the schema field descriptions.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Create a new project") and scopes it to an organization, which clearly separates it from get/update/delete-project-tool siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase "in the given organization" implies that an organization must already exist, and the quota sentence hints at a failure condition. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus update-project-tool or the other create-* tools, so guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources