picorn_projects_createCreate a marketing project that can hold many editor files and imported image assets. Keep the returned workspaceProjectId and workspaceProjectKey together; use them when adding every related file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| brandColors | No | ||
| description | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the annotations: readOnlyHint=false aligns with the create/write behavior. It adds useful context beyond the annotations by noting that the project holds editor files and imported assets and that the returned workspaceProjectId and workspaceProjectKey must be preserved together for later operations. It does not elaborate on openWorldHint implications such as possible additional side effects, but the create semantics and annotations cover the core behavior.
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 two sentences with no filler: the first states the primary purpose and the second gives the critical operational instruction about returned IDs. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema, mentioning the returned workspaceProjectId and workspaceProjectKey is valuable and necessary. However, the description omits parameter semantics and does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling project-creation tools, leaving meaningful gaps given the 0% schema description coverage and openWorldHint.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention or explain any of the three parameters: name, brandColors, or description. The agent must infer parameter meaning solely from raw JSON schema, which is especially insufficient for brandColors and its nested structure.
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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('marketing project') and adds a clear capability: it can hold many editor files and imported image assets. This distinguishes it from sibling project-creation tools at a high level, though it does not explicitly name the 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?
The description implies a use case: creating a marketing project to contain editor files and imported assets, and it gives a follow-up instruction to keep the returned IDs for related operations. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over picorn_editor_create_project or picorn_video_create_project, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or operation, with clear boundaries between image generation/editing and the many editor/video actions. Descriptions further clarify any potential overlap, making misselection unlikely.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but the projects_* tools (create, inspect, update) reverse to noun_verb, and capabilities is a bare noun. This mixed convention is readable but not fully consistent.
With 30 tools, the set exceeds the 25-tool threshold and feels heavy for an MCP server. While the broad scope justifies some size, many tools could be consolidated or split into focused servers.
Core image, editor, and video workflows are covered, but there are notable gaps such as no delete operations for editor/video projects, no update for video projects, and no lifecycle management for imported assets. These missing operations can create dead ends.