Creates a new SlideMaster project and returns its ID for subsequent operations. Specify title, type (traditional or flow), and optional description to get started.
Create a new SlideMaster project. Returns the project_id needed for subsequent operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Project type: 'traditional' or 'flow' (default: 'traditional') | |
| title | Yes | Project title | |
| description | No | Optional project description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the main side effect (creating a project) and the return value (project_id), going beyond what the tool name alone implies. It also adds the useful context that the project_id is required for subsequent operations. With no annotations, it carries the burden well, though it omits details like error handling or whether creation is idempotent.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the return-value note earns its place by signaling workflow relevance.
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 simple creation tool with only three parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It states the return value (project_id) and its importance for later steps, which is the key contextual information. Missing details like response format or error conditions are minor at this complexity level.
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%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but it doesn't need to; 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new SlideMaster project') and the resource, making it obvious this is a creation tool. It is easily distinguished from sibling project tools like update_project, get_project, list_projects, and delete_project by the verb and 'new' qualifier.
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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not name other project operations or state prerequisites. The phrase 'needed for subsequent operations' hints at its role in a workflow but does not provide clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.