Skip to main content
Glama

Create a project

create_project

Start an empty Lazybird project, for a voiceover longer than generate_speech takes (a script of blocks, each in its own voice if wanted) or for a video. Fill it with edit_project.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the project starts empty and must be populated by a separate call. However, it never says what comes back — an agent needs the new project identifier to chain into edit_project, and there is no output schema to supply that.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoped by purpose; the parenthetical adds real constraint information rather than filler. No sentence is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a low-complexity creation tool with annotations and one parameter, the description covers the 'what' and 'when' well. It falls short on the chaining detail (returned project ID) and on the name parameter's semantics/optionality, both of which the agent needs to use the tool end-to-end.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'name' is never mentioned in the description. It also fails to clarify whether the name is required, even though the schema lists no required fields, leaving ambiguity an agent must resolve by guesswork.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Start an empty Lazybird project') and immediately explains why it exists versus the sibling generate_speech, plus what the project contains (a script of blocks, each in its own voice, or a video). An agent can distinguish it from generate_speech and edit_project without inspecting either 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?

Explicitly names the selection condition against an alternative ('for a voiceover longer than generate_speech takes... or for a video') and names the follow-up tool ('Fill it with edit_project'). This is when-to-use plus next-step routing, not just implied usage.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.