Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

create_project

Start building something new: creates a GitHub repo and begins work on it.

Use this ONLY when the user wants a NEW repo scaffolded. If they already
have a repo, use import_project(repo_full_name) instead — this tool would
create a second, empty one beside theirs (list_github_repos() browses what
the workspace can see).

Scaffolds a new GitHub repo, a bootstrap-mode project, and submits
`build_description` as the project's first Roadmap Request. `name` is a
concise GitHub short repo slug (no owner); `project_kind` is REQUIRED and
one of library | node_library | python_library | service | cli | web_app |
godot_game | roblox_game; `preview_command` is required iff
`project_kind == 'web_app'`.
`engine` is
OPTIONAL — one of claude_code | codex | glm | kimi | grok (defaults to
claude_code); codex, glm, kimi, and grok require the workspace to have a
matching connected credential.
`org` is OPTIONAL — a GitHub organization login to create the repo inside
(e.g. your company org); omit it to land the repo on a member's personal
account. `private` defaults to True.
`ci_runs_on` is OPTIONAL — the CI runner labels for the scaffolded workflow,
e.g. ["self-hosted", "linux", "x64", "my-fleet"]. Omit it to inherit the
workspace default (ubuntu-latest if unset). Labels no registered org runner
carries are rejected, because GitHub would queue such a job forever rather
than fail it.
`framework` is OPTIONAL and `web_app`-only — one of vite | next (defaults to
vite). It picks the scaffolded frontend rails: `vite` a vanilla-TypeScript
SPA, `next` a Next.js app-router app. Passing it with any other
`project_kind` is an error.

The repo is created on the GitHub account of a workspace member with
repo-create OAuth access (this path has no specific caller user), so the
returned `repo` owner is whichever member's token resolved (or the chosen
`org`). If no member has repo-create access — or the resolving member can't
create in `org` — the call returns an actionable error.

Returns {project_id, repo, thread_id, next_action, poll_after_seconds,
next_step}; follow next_step (poll get_request_status with the returned
thread_id). On the rare arm where the first Request failed to submit,
next_action is "call_tool" with next_tool="submit_request".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orgNo
nameYes
engineNo
privateNo
frameworkNo
ci_runs_onNo
project_kindYes
preview_commandNo
build_descriptionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false; the description goes far beyond these by disclosing auth mechanics (repo created on a workspace member's token with repo-create OAuth access, no specific caller user), the error branch when no member can create in org, the CI-label rejection rationale (GitHub queues forever instead of failing), and the rare arm where next_action='call_tool' with next_tool='submit_request'. This is rich, annotation-independent behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long, but the information density justifies it given 9 undocumented parameters. Purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded in the first paragraph; parameters, edge cases, and return flow follow in logical order. The minor awkward line break around '`engine` is OPTIONAL' is cosmetic. Docked slightly for length despite every sentence earning its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a high-complexity tool (9 params, 3 required, auth edge cases), nothing is missing: purpose, when/when-not, all parameter semantics, credential prerequisites, error paths, and the actionable follow-up flow (poll get_request_status with the returned thread_id). The output schema covers return structure, and the description explains what to DO with it — complete and actionable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the entire burden — and it delivers for all 9 parameters: name ('concise GitHub short repo slug (no owner)'), project_kind (full enum list), preview_command (conditional requirement), engine (enum + credential dependency), org (placement effect), private (default True), ci_runs_on (examples + failure semantics), framework (enum + rails it selects). Even build_description is contextualized as the first Roadmap Request. Fully compensates for the empty schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb ('Start building something new: creates a GitHub repo and begins work on it') naming the resource and the orchestration side-effect (submitting a Roadmap Request). It explicitly differentiates from import_project ('If they already have a repo, use import_project...'). Purpose is unmistakable and distinguishes cleanly from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States the exclusive condition explicitly — 'Use this ONLY when the user wants a NEW repo scaffolded' — and names both the alternative tool (import_project with its argument) and the browsing helper (list_github_repos). There are no gaps: an agent knows exactly when to pick this tool versus its siblings.

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

All Keelen toolsInspect
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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action duo, even within clusters like request handling or security reviews. The get_ vs run_ pairs are clearly separated, and descriptions explicitly contrast confusing alternatives such as archive_project vs delete_project.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows verb_noun snake_case (submit_request, list_projects, resolve_escalation). The one visible deviation is project_status, which breaks the get_/pattern, and signup is a single-word verb instead of sign_up.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and spans auth, billing, project lifecycle, roadmap, escalations, product documents, and multiple review types. Most tools earn their place, but the surface is too large for one server and would be more coherent split into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The domain coverage is broad: full project lifecycle, request intake/refinement, roadmap manipulation, escalation handling, product doc read/write, and security/legal review flows. Minor gaps exist, most notably no dedicated task-listing or task-update tool, but agents can work around these via project_status and list_escalations.

Resources