create_companiesCreate a new company (workspace). The authenticated user is automatically added as its first member. Use this to start a fresh tenant that will own its own projects, sprints and tasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses a meaningful side effect: 'The authenticated user is automatically added as its first member.' This adds behavioral context not available in annotations and helps the agent understand what happens on creation. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Three short, purposeful sentences. The first sentence states the core action, the second gives a key side effect, and the third provides usage context. No fluff or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
The description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the automatic membership side effect, and how the new company fits into the system (owning projects/sprints/tasks). It does not state return value expectations, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. Overall, it is well-rounded for a create tool with this schema complexity.
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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. However, the description does not mention 'body', 'name', or nested fields at all. The required 'name' is implied by the action, but the description adds no insight into 'description' or 'daily_resume_default', leaving the schema to carry that burden.
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 clearly states the action: 'Create a new company (workspace)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling create_* tools by explaining that a company is a 'fresh tenant' that will own its own projects, sprints, and tasks, so it cannot be confused with creating those sub-entities.
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?
It provides clear usage context: 'Use this to start a fresh tenant' and explains the ownership model. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, the description makes the unique role of create_companies clear relative to create_projects, create_sprints, etc.
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.
Most tools are clearly scoped to a specific resource and action, but a few near-overlapping pairs (e.g., list_attachments vs list_taskattachments, create_tasktags vs add_tag_tasks) could cause misselection without close reading. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity.
The dominant verb_noun CRUD pattern (create_, list_, retrieve_, update_, partial_update_, destroy_) is consistent and predictable. However, non-standard pluralizations (companys, resumeentrys, taskdependencys) and a handful of irregular names (task_assign_user, move_relate_to_tasks) introduce minor inconsistencies.
With 83 tools, this server is far beyond a well-scoped MCP surface, even for a feature-complete project management suite. The sheer volume will overwhelm agents and make selection inefficient, clearly falling into the extreme-mismatch range.
The toolset provides thorough lifecycle coverage across companies, projects, tasks, sprints, attachments, comments, dependencies, tags, reminders, resume entries, tickets, and users. Missing operations like company deletion or task-attachment creation appear intentional and are worked around via existing tools.