SplitLaunch

projects_create

Create a SplitLaunch project/client workspace, allocate a public pixel ID, and optionally allowlist initial customer-owned domains. Requires an account-level API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`allowedDomains`	No	Optional hostnames to allowlist, e.g. example.com. Do not send full page URLs here.
`attributionModel`	No	Optional attribution model. Default: last_touch.
`reportingTimezone`	No	Optional IANA timezone. Default: UTC.
`attributionWindowDays`	No	Optional attribution window in days.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals side effects: allocation of a public pixel ID. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key details. No redundant or excessive wording.

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?

Covers purpose, prerequisites, and a side effect. Lacks explicit mention of return values, but given no output schema and existence of projects_get, it's adequate.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions in schema). The description adds only partial context for allowedDomains ('optionally allowlist...'). For other parameters, schema descriptions suffice. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a concrete action: 'Create a SplitLaunch project/client workspace, allocate a public pixel ID, and optionally allowlist initial customer-owned domains.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like projects_list, projects_update, etc.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

States when to use and a prerequisite ('requires an account-level API key'). Does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, but context with sibling tools makes it clear.

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

All SplitLaunch 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action combination (e.g., domains_add, experiments_create, goals_deactivate, reports_experiment_chart). There is no overlap or ambiguity; even the three report tools serve clearly different purposes (totals, time-series, channel breakdown).

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a resource_action snake_case pattern (domains_add, experiments_list). A couple deviate (billing_portal, usage_summary) but still place the resource first, making the pattern predictable and easy to parse.

Tool Count5/5

With 23 tools covering projects, domains, experiments, goals, reports, billing, health, and usage, the count is well-scoped for a split-testing platform. Each tool addresses a specific need without ballooning into excessive granularity.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface provides CRUD-like operations for core entities (projects, experiments, goals, domains) and essential report types. Minor gaps exist (no goal update tool, no experiment delete—only archive) but these are reasonable trade-offs for the domain.

Resources

Need Help?