DutyHub MCP Server

create_project

Creates a new project in DutyHub with customizable details such as name, description, status, dates, and visibility settings.

Instructions

Yeni bir DutyHub projesi oluşturur (UI'daki 'New Project').

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Proje adı
`description`	No	Açıklama
`status`	No	Durum (Active/On Hold/Completed/Planning). Varsayılan: Active
`start_date`	No	Başlangıç tarihi (YYYY-MM-DD veya ISO)
`end_date`	No	Bitiş tarihi (YYYY-MM-DD veya ISO)
`visibility`	No	Görünürlük. Varsayılan: private

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool creates a project, omitting details such as authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., duplicate name handling), or whether changes are reversible.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though slightly more detail could be added without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description lacks critical context such as return values, error handling, or behavioral details. For a creation tool with six parameters, more completeness is needed for effective agent usage.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, resulting in baseline adequacy.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool creates a new DutyHub project and references the UI equivalent, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling creation tools like create_task or create_sprint, but the resource name itself provides adequate distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for creating projects via the name and UI reference, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server