Creates a new API testing project workspace with a unique name and optional description, letting you organize requests, environments, and tests by project.
Create a new API testing project workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Unique name of the project (e.g. PaymentAPI) | |
| description | No | Optional project details |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool creates a workspace but does not mention required permissions, whether the new project becomes the active project, uniqueness enforcement beyond the schema, side effects, or what is returned.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It communicates the core operation efficiently without burying the purpose in unnecessary wording.
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?
The tool is simple, with only two well-documented parameters and no nested objects or output schema. However, with no annotations, the description should ideally clarify behavioral details such as whether creation activates the project or what happens on duplicate names. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
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 schema already documents both the required unique name and optional description parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: creating a new API testing project workspace. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling project tools such as project_switch or project_rename.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Creation is implied by the verb 'Create', but the description does not mention sibling tools or the conditions under which a new project should be created.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.