l0-py-blocks-mcp

create_project

Create a new project in Selise Cloud.

Args: project_name: Name of the project to create repo_name: Repository name (e.g., 'username/repo') repo_link: Full GitHub repository URL repo_id: Repository ID from GitHub or Git provider is_production: Whether this is a production environment (default: False)

Returns: JSON string with project creation results

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`repo_id`	No	Any
`repo_link`	Yes
`repo_name`	Yes
`project_name`	Yes
`is_production`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists arguments and return value, but does not mention permissions, idempotency, error conditions, or side effects beyond creation.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a clear summary and then listing args and return value. It avoids fluff.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description provides enough to invoke the tool with correct parameters, especially since output schema exists for return values. However, it lacks contextual details like when to use or potential failure modes, making it merely adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by explaining each parameter. It clarifies repo_name format (e.g., 'username/repo'), repo_link as full URL, and notes defaults for repo_id and is_production.

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 clearly states 'Create a new project in Selise Cloud' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_projects (which lists projects) and create_module.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

All l0-py-blocks-mcp 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

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools are organized into clear domains (auth, roles, schemas, translations, projects), and within each domain, tools have distinct purposes (e.g., get_schema vs list_schemas, save_captcha_config vs update_captcha_status). A few pairs like get_auth_status and get_authentication_config could cause minor confusion, but their descriptions clarify the difference.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, using predictable verbs like get, list, create, update, set, enable, and configure. Even longer names like save_module_keys_with_translations adhere to the same convention, with no mixed casing or arbitrary styles.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range for MCP servers. While the broad platform domain justifies some breadth, the sheer volume can overwhelm agents and suggests the toolset could be consolidated or split into smaller, focused servers.

Completeness3/5

The toolset provides decent coverage for creation, listing, and some updates across entities like permissions, roles, schemas, and translations. However, there are notable gaps: no delete operations for most resources, no role update, and no project update/delete, which leaves lifecycle management incomplete.

Resources

Need Help?