Skip to main content
Glama

create_project

Create a NEW Flow project on one of your farm accounts and return its project_id.

Use this to give every one of YOUR OWN clients their own namespace: create a project
per client once, then pass that project_id to generate_image / generate_video so
their results never mix with anyone else's.

account — which farm account creates it (see flow_dashboard / check_credits for the
emails). The project is created under that account, but a project id is a label every
account accepts: generation keeps rotating accounts as before, so results stay grouped
by project_id, not by account. What is still account-bound is media_ids — a follow-up
that reuses one (image_inputs edit-in-place, extend_video, upscale) only works on the
account that produced that particular frame, exactly as today.
name — optional human-readable title, e.g. the client's name.

The returned project is usable for generation IMMEDIATELY. It may not show up in the
Flow web UI's project list (`registered: false` in the result says so) — that only
affects browsing in Google's own interface, not this API: every result comes back as
urls/media_ids in the generation response either way.

Returns {"project_id": ..., "account": ..., "registered": true|false}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
accountYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing that projects may not appear in the Flow UI, that 'registered: false' only affects browsing in Google's interface, and that media_ids remain account-bound. It also states that the project is usable immediately, which is important operational context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 longer than average but structured with clear breaks and focused paragraphs. It front-loads the core action and return value, then explains account semantics and UI caveats. Each paragraph earns its place, though the media_ids digression could arguably be trimmed for a shorter definition.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, this description is unusually complete: it documents both parameters, the return shape, immediate usability, account bindings, and a UI caveat. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and set expectations for the response.

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 must carry the full burden of explaining parameters. It does so thoroughly: 'account' is explained in terms of which farm account creates the project and its relation to project_id/media_ids, and 'name' is described as optional with an example. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a NEW Flow project'), names the return value, and clearly distinguishes this tool from the surrounding generation and character tools. It also explains the core purpose (giving each client their own namespace), which makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: create one project per client once, then pass the project_id to generate_image/generate_video. It also clarifies account-vs-project behavior and the limitation that media_ids remain account-bound. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the use case is clear enough.

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.