bootstrap_projectCreate or verify a project workspace with README index and optional agent-defined subfolders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| scope | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| folders | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| related | No | ||
| summary | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| project_key | No | ||
| canonical_docs | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and safety implications. 'Create or verify' hints at potential file/folder creation but does not state whether it overwrites existing content, requires prior project existence, or is idempotent, which is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 10 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent. It does not explain prerequisites, behavioral nuances, or what 'verify' entails, leaving important context unaddressed despite the presence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 10 parameters. It only hints at 'optional agent-defined subfolders', which vaguely maps to the 'folders' parameter, but provides no meaning for title, project, description, or other parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb, 'Create or verify', with a clear resource, 'project workspace', and mentions key elements (README index, subfolders). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like create_folder, which handles individual folders, though it does not explicitly reference the sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_folder or list_folders. 'Create or verify' implies a setup context, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but there are overlapping areas such as search_akashic vs search_notes vs search_and_read_top, and confirm_note/dispute_note/review_note which serve related but different review functions. Descriptions are detailed enough to reduce ambiguity, though some boundary cases require careful reading.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_notes, create_folder, delete_note, move_note). Even debug tools and compound names like search_and_read_top maintain the convention. The only exception is whoami, which is a common standalone verb and does not break the overall pattern.
With 35 tools, the server has a large surface area that could overwhelm agents. The tool count exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' in the rubric, even though the broad domain (notes, folders, search, reviews, publication workflow, debugging) partially justifies the number. The set feels heavy and could benefit from consolidation.
The toolset provides thorough coverage of the knowledge management lifecycle: note CRUD (upsert/read/delete/move), folder management, multiple search modes, review/confirmation/dispute mechanisms, publication workflow, stale note handling, image upload, and debugging utilities. There are no obvious dead ends; every major operation needed to manage and publish notes is represented.