huly-mcp-selfhost

create_teamspace

Create a document teamspace in a Huly workspace, optionally private, to organize and group related team documents in one place.

Instructions

Create a document teamspace

Tool call template

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": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_teamspace"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`isPrivate`	No	Private teamspace
`workspace`	Yes
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false and a title, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool. It says nothing about required permissions, whether the teamspace is visible org-wide, how isPrivate interacts with teamspace membership, or what happens on name collisions — all relevant for a create operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

At four words it is certainly concise and front-loaded, but brevity here is achieved through omission rather than efficiency. Nothing in the sentence is wasted, yet nothing is added either.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating tool with four parameters, 25% schema coverage, and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot determine prerequisites, parameter meaning, or the result of a successful call without consulting other sources.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25%: only isPrivate carries a terse schema note ("Private teamspace") and name, workspace, and description are undocumented anywhere. The description adds no meaning to any of the four parameters, leaving ambiguity about what workspace identifies and what the description field populates.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a verb and a resource ("Create a document teamspace"), so the general action is discernible. However, "document teamspace" is an opaque compound that does not clarify whether this creates a container for documents or a teamspace of a particular type, and it offers no differentiation from siblings such as create_document or create_channel.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the caller must already belong to the workspace), and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server