Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Urlbox

by io.github.urlbox
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create a Urlbox project

create_project
Destructive

Create a project in your Urlbox organisation, for example one per environment (dev, staging, prod). Returns the new project's id; pass it (or its name) as project to the render tools. The project's API key and secret are not returned: copy them from the Urlbox dashboard.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesProject name, unique within the organisation.
intentYesRequired. In one or two sentences, what you are trying to achieve for the user with this call and why (for example: 'Screenshot the pricing page so the user can compare plans'). Recorded for analytics and audit; do not include secrets.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: only the id is returned and the API key/secret must be retrieved from the dashboard — a critical surprise-prevention detail for a mutation that creates credentials-bearing resources. It does not mention permissions or irreversibility, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the return value/how to use it, then the credential caveat. Every sentence carries information, with no redundant restatement of the name or title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is created, what is returned, and the notable gap (secrets not returned). It could add whether the name must be unique or what happens on duplicate names, since uniqueness is only stated in the schema, but overall it is sufficient to call correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, including detailed descriptions for both `name` and `intent`, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no field-level syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create a project in your Urlbox organisation') and immediately distinguishes it from siblings like get_project/list_projects/update_project by describing the creation act and the per-environment use case. It also explains what is produced (the new project's id) and how it feeds the render tools.

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?

Gives concrete usage context ('for example one per environment (dev, staging, prod)') and the downstream step ('pass it (or its name) as `project` to the render tools'). It does not explicitly name update_project or get_project as alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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

All Urlbox toolsInspect
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.

Resources