Keelen

Create Project

create_project

Destructive

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

For a NEW repo. Given an existing repo, import_project(repo_full_name) is
the right call — this one would create a second, empty repo beside it
(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'`. `mobile_app` is not a creation kind in this
phase: mobile creation is unavailable until R2, so a `mobile_app` request
returns `mobile_creation_unsupported` before any repository or project is
created. Imported Expo repositories are recognised through import_project
instead.
`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}; next_step names the follow-up poll of 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".

If scaffolding fails after the repository has been created, best-effort
compensation deletes that just-created repository so a retry can reuse the
name — this tool can therefore remove external state it created moments
earlier.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`org`	No
`name`	Yes
`engine`	No
`private`	No
`framework`	No
`ci_runs_on`	No
`project_kind`	Yes
`preview_command`	No
`build_description`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds material context beyond them: engine choices require a matching connected credential, ci_runs_on labels without a registered runner are rejected rather than queued, and scaffolding failure triggers best-effort deletion of the just-created repo. That last sentence is a genuine disclosure of side effects an agent would not otherwise know.

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?

Well front-loaded — purpose, then alternative, then mechanics — and most sentences earn their place given nine parameters and real behavioral caveats. It loses a point for ragged formatting (line breaks splitting sentences like "`engine` is\nOPTIONAL") and some mild restatement of the repo-creation outcome in the opening and third paragraphs.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description still flags the returned keys and the follow-up poll via get_request_status, plus the rare next_action="call_tool" submit_request arm. For a tool that creates external state, the failure/compensation path is covered, leaving nothing critical unstated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely discharges it: name is a short repo slug with no owner, project_kind is enumerated plus required, preview_command is conditional on web_app, framework is web_app-only with vite|next defaults, engine is enumerated with defaults and credential preconditions, org/private/ci_runs_on semantics all explained. Only minor gap is that build_description's content expectations are only lightly sketched.

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+resource+outcome ("creates a GitHub repo and begins work on it") and immediately names the sibling it is not (import_project) and the sibling for browsing (list_github_repos). An agent can distinguish this from every other create-ish tool in the sibling list without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit routing: "For a NEW repo. Given an existing repo, import_project(repo_full_name) is the right call" — with the consequence spelled out (a second empty repo beside it). It also states the mobile_app exclusion and points mobile/Expo cases at import_project, giving both when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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

All Keelen tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.