projects.createCreate a new private SparkLaunch business project for the authenticated user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| stage | No | ||
| industry | No | ||
| one_liner | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| entity_type | No | ||
| business_model | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No | ||
| business_description | 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 mark this as a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds that the project is private and scoped to the authenticated user, which is useful context, but it does not explain idempotency_key behavior, duplicate handling, or access implications.
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?
A single sentence with no wasted words. The action, resource, privacy scope, and user context are all front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 thin for a tool with nine optional parameters, no schema descriptions, and sparse annotations. It does not clarify parameter semantics, how this project creation relates to sibling creation tools, or how idempotency and project uniqueness behave.
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 and nine parameters, the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter-level meaning at all. Fields such as stage, industry, entity_type, business_model, and especially idempotency_key are left undefined, adding no value beyond the bare schema titles.
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 action (create), a concrete resource (SparkLaunch business project), and useful qualifiers (private, authenticated user). It is clear and likely distinguishable from sibling tools like projects.update, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as landing.create_project or validation.create_project. The description implies it is for creating a project, but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different tool should be chosen.
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.