Scribase

project.put

Create or update a project. PUT /v1/organizations/{id}/projects/{project}.

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>",
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "region": "<region>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "project.put"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`region`	Yes	region (required)
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true to apply this mutation; otherwise the tool returns the request it would send for approval.
`project_id`	Yes	project_id (required)
`postgres_major`	No	Postgres major version (default 17)
`organization_id`	Yes	organization_id (required)
`confirm_billable_cents`	No	Only after the user approved it: the monthly_delta_cents from a 402 confirm_billable answer

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is to add context such as the confirm/dry-run gate or the billable-approval flow. It adds none of that, restating only what a PUT implies; notably idempotentHint=false sits awkwardly with the 'create or update' phrasing, though the description does not outright contradict it.

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, with no filler or repetition. The brevity is efficient even if it is a symptom of under-specification rather than a virtue in itself.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with a confirm-to-apply dry-run path, a 402 billable-approval escalation, and an ambiguous overlap with projects.create, the definition says almost nothing. With no output schema, the description needed to carry that flow context and does not.

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 each of the six parameters is already documented, including the critical semantics of 'confirm' and 'confirm_billable_cents', and that sets the baseline at 3. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, but nothing is missing either.

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

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The definition names a specific resource ('a project') and operation ('Create or update'), plus the underlying endpoint, so the basic action is legible. However, 'create or update' overlaps heavily with the sibling tool projects.create, and the description never clarifies the boundary between them, leaving an agent unsure when this upsert form is the right call.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (projects.create, project.get, project.list, org.put). The agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.

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

All Scribase 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?