Create a new module in an existing project by specifying the project UUID and module details such as name and description.
Create a new module in a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project to create the module in | |
| module_data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5-8seneca.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.
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 creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and complex nested input structure (module_data with 28 properties), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'module' represents in this context, what fields are mandatory beyond 'name', or what the tool returns upon success.
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 50%, with only 'project_id' having a description. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. However, with 2 parameters total and one already documented in the schema, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does some heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new module in a project'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_cycle' or 'create_project', which follow the same pattern but target different resources.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparison with sibling tools like 'update_module' or 'list_modules' that might be relevant in different contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.