Creates a project for a team user. Requires X-API-Key (existing users can generate an API key in the web app). If headers aren't supported, pass api_key in arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Project name. | |
| api_key | No | Optional API key for clients that cannot set X-API-Key headers. | |
| user_id | Yes | User id (from create_account or get_account). | |
| description | No | Optional project description. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the auth requirement and the api_key fallback, but it does not state what is returned after creation, whether creation can fail, or any additional side effects beyond the implicit 'creates'.
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, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no redundant or filler language. Every sentence contributes either the action or the critical auth prerequisite.
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 reasonably complete for a simple creation tool with a fully documented schema, but it relies on the schema to clarify user_id provenance and omits the expected response/return value and potential failure conditions. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, a short statement of return behavior would make it more complete.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description mostly restates the api_key fallback that is already in the schema's api_key description, adding the small context about generating keys in the web app, but no substantial new parameter meaning.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Creates a project for a team user,' which clearly identifies the operation and its target. This is unambiguously distinguishable from sibling tools such as create_account, delete_project, and list_projects because the resource and action are explicit.
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 gives clear invocation context: it states the authentication prerequisite (X-API-Key), explains where keys come from, and offers a fallback when headers are unsupported. It does not name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct by resource and action, but the three get-code-vault-* variants (summary, results, reports) plus get_vault create a cluster of similar-sounding retrieval tools. The use of both 'vault' and 'code-vault' in names increases the chance of misselection, though descriptions do clarify the differences.
Naming convention is inconsistent: snake_case (create_account, get_vault, list_projects) is mixed with kebab-case (create-code-vault, get-code-vault-summary, reanalyze-code-vault). The same concept is referred to as 'vault' and 'code-vault' across tool names, breaking predictability.
At 16 tools, the server is slightly over the ideal 3-15 range but still reasonable for the domain covering accounts, projects, vaults, and analysis retrieval. The count is justified by the distinct resources and operations, though a few vault-related tools could potentially be consolidated.
The server provides solid lifecycle coverage: account create/get/delete, project CRUD (minus update), vault create/read/delete/reanalyze, plus API key rotation. Minor gaps exist, such as no update methods for accounts or projects, but the core workflows are well-supported without dead ends.
