landing.create_projectCreate a private landing-page project and draft configuration in the selected SparkLaunch project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| cta_type | No | waitlist | |
| one_liner | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| target_icp | No | ||
| product_name | Yes | ||
| template_type | No | saas | |
| idempotency_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds a little context by saying the project is 'private' and includes 'draft configuration,' but it does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or idempotency behavior despite an idempotency_key parameter.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler and the main purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief but slightly undersized given the tool's 8 parameters and lack of schema descriptions.
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 is too sparse for a create tool with 8 parameters and no parameter descriptions in the schema. It does not explain required fields, the meaning of 'draft configuration,' or how idempotency_key affects behavior. The presence of an output schema helps with return values but does not compensate for missing parameter and usage guidance.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. It only hints at project_id via 'selected SparkLaunch project,' leaving name, product_name, one_liner, cta_type, target_icp, template_type, and idempotency_key unexplained.
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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('private landing-page project'), and clarifies that it operates inside a SparkLaunch project. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like landing.list_projects and landing.publish, though it does not name them.
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?
The description implies this tool is for initial creation of a landing project, which is enough to distinguish it from later-stage tools like landing.publish or landing.generate_content. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any prerequisites.
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.
Domain prefixes (crm., cap_table., landing.) clearly separate broad modules, and most tools target a specific resource and action. However, within modules there are boundary overlaps—crm.add_contact_note vs crm.log_activity and cap_table.dilution_preview vs cap_table.simulate_raise—where descriptions must be read carefully to avoid a wrong pick.
The dominant pattern is module.verb_noun (e.g., crm.create_lead, cap_table.update_stakeholder), which is clear and readable. But a subset of top-level tools uses object_verb with flat underscores (e.g., shortlink_create, qr_generate, campaign_archive) and one outlier (campaign_stats) breaks the verb pattern, so conventions are mixed.
86 tools is an extreme surface for any single MCP server, well past the 50+ threshold that makes coherent selection impractical. Even though the features span several business domains, this would be far more usable split into focused servers per module.
The covered domains are broadly complete: cap table, CRM, incorporation, landing, projects, sparkroom, tasks, and validation all have read/write workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps remain (no campaign listing/update, no branding palette delete/update, no contact deletion) but none of them blocks the main product workflows.