Add a new workflow state to an existing project by specifying the project ID and state details such as name and color.
Create a new state in a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project to create the state in | |
| state_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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address permissions needed, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with complex nested parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function, though this conciseness comes at the cost of missing important contextual information.
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 complex nested parameters (state_data has 18 properties) and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'state' represents in this system, what fields are required versus optional, or what the tool returns. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without trial and error.
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?
The description mentions 'project' and 'state' which align with the two parameters (project_id and state_data), but adds no semantic details beyond what's in the schema. With 50% schema description coverage (only project_id has a description), the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented state_data properties. The baseline is 3 since the description at least hints at the parameter purposes.
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 state in a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other creation tools like create_cycle, create_issue, or create_project, which all follow the same pattern of creating resources within projects.
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 this is appropriate versus other state-related tools (like update_state or list_states), or any contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.