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'`.
`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

TableJSON 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

TableJSON 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 flag destructiveHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the repo is created via whichever member holds repo-create OAuth access (or the chosen org), an actionable error results if none exists, unregistered CI labels are rejected rather than queued, and on scaffolding failure best-effort compensation deletes the just-created repo. This goes well beyond what the annotations provide and is internally consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by sibling routing, then per-parameter detail, then return/error behavior — a sensible order. The opening 'Start building something new:' is mild filler and the parameter section is dense, but at 0% schema coverage nearly every sentence earns its place, so only minor trimming is possible.

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 9-parameter, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with an output schema, the description covers prerequisites (repo-create OAuth access), failure modes (missing credential, invalid CI labels, framework/kind mismatch, failed submit with a next_tool directive), and the follow-up action (poll get_request_status). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 full burden and does: it enumerates the project_kind values, the engine values with credential preconditions, the web_app-only framework values, the conditional requirement that preview_command is set iff project_kind=='web_app', the ci_runs_on label format and validation, and the default/meaning of org and private. This fully compensates for the undocumented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('creates a GitHub repo and begins work on it') and immediately distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by name ('Given an existing repo, import_project(repo_full_name) is the right call'). An agent can tell it apart from import_project, list_github_repos, and list_projects without opening any 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 when-to-use ('For a NEW repo'), explicit when-not ('this one would create a second, empty repo beside it'), and it names the alternative call with its argument signature, plus a browsing sibling for discovery. Nothing is left to inference.

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.