EchoRelay

create_project

Create a new project on your account so an agent can bootstrap from a fresh account. The slug is derived from the name and validated server-side (format, reserved words, uniqueness). Each plan includes a fixed number of active projects (free tiers one; paid plans more — see list_subscription_plans); at the limit this errors — if an existing project can host this integration, skip create_project and call create_project_token against it instead of adding another. Requires an ACCOUNT-scoped token and the config scope. Returns the created project ({id, slug, name, apiBaseUrl, archived}); call create_project_token next to mint a token for it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Human-readable project name (1–100 chars). The slug is derived from it.

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations only say non-readOnly/non-destructive, but the description adds rich behavioral detail: slug derivation and server-side validation (format, reserved words, uniqueness), plan-based errors, required ACCOUNT-scoped token and config scope, and the exact response fields. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but each sentence earns its place: purpose, slug derivation/validation, plan limits and alternative, prerequisites, return value and next step. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, but the description fully covers prerequisites, error conditions, return format, and follow-up actions. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes the name parameter and slug derivation. The description adds meaningful context: server-side validation specifics, plan limits affecting whether the call succeeds, and the relationship to the follow-up create_project_token call. This goes beyond just repeating the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new project on your account'. It distinguishes from sibling create_project_token by explicitly saying to skip create_project and call create_project_token when an existing project can host the integration.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit usage context: bootstrap from a fresh account, plan limits, and the alternative to use create_project_token with an existing project. Also states required token type and scope, making when-to-use clear.

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

All EchoRelay tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct resources and the descriptions are unusually explicit, but the billing cluster (change_plan/cancel_subscription and the many add-on actions) plus the preview/diff tools overlap and could cause mis-selection. config_diff, dry_run_endpoint, and preview_line_draft all read as 'preview what will change' at first glance despite different scopes.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, set_*, update_*, delete_*. It is only held back by a few naming outliers such as config_diff and default_endpoint_template, which break the verb-first convention.

Tool Count1/5

78 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server surface, even accounting for the broad management/relay domain. Such a large surface will overwhelm model context and make tool selection materially harder; this would be better split into focused servers for configuration, data-plane operations, and billing.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is very thorough: projects, lines, endpoints, credentials, keys, configs/drafts, DLQ, requests, metrics, audit, team, and billing are all represented. Only minor gaps exist, such as no direct single-line get/update and the intentional inability to widen the outbound allowlist or lift archive protection via API.

Resources

Need Help?