Pizza Developer

Create project

create_project

Create a project from its details, with any Ideas the vibe coder supplied. Only the name is required; Ideas, Batches, Works, Deliveries, a Workflow, a repository, and a live URL can all be added later. Supplied Ideas keep their order, and up to the first two become planning input. Everything is validated before anything is written.

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	Project name.
`tags`	No	Project tags.
`ideas`	No	Ideas to create with the Project, in order.
`liveUrl`	No	Live URL of the Project.
`repoUrl`	No	Repository URL of the Project.
`requestId`	No	Optional unique ID for this create. After a timeout, retry with the same requestId and arguments: the record already created is returned instead of a duplicate.
`description`	No	What the Project is.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 11, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / templateId

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Id of a project template from list_templates.",
-  "minLength": 1,
-  "type": "string"
-}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / templateId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Id of a project template from list_templates.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: Ideas are order-preserving, only the first two become planning input, and 'everything is validated before anything is written' discloses atomic all-or-nothing semantics.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the required-vs-optional split. Dense with useful behavior and no filler, though the list of later-addable entities is slightly long.

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 create tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers required fields, optional additions, validation behavior and the special semantics of ideas. The requestId retry behavior is documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the terse schema descriptions by explaining that Ideas retain order and that up to the first two feed planning input, clarifying the semantic role of the ideas parameter rather than just restating it.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a project') and clarifies that supplied Ideas come along, so the agent knows this is the project-creation entry point with optional nested ideas. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like create_idea or create_work, but the scope 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?

It tells the agent only the name is required and that Ideas, Batches, Works, Deliveries, a Workflow, repo and live URL can be added later, which implies the minimal call. However it offers no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance (e.g. create this vs create_idea standalone).

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

All Pizza Developer 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?