Create a project and make the authenticated user its owner.
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": {
"key": "<key>"
},
"name": "create_project"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Project key; whitespace is normalized to underscores. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the ownership assignment, but says nothing about key uniqueness, failure modes, or what happens on duplicate keys.
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?
One short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and immediately stating the resulting ownership state.
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?
For a one-parameter create tool with full schema coverage, the definition covers the essentials, but with no output schema the agent gets no indication of what is returned or how conflicts on an existing key are handled.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter's normalization rule (whitespace to underscores) is documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the key, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Create a project") and adds the non-obvious side effect that the authenticated user becomes owner. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as create_project_baseline or join_project, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. join_project for an existing project), and no stated prerequisites or permissions. Usage is only inferable from the verb.
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.