openproject-mcp

Create project

op_create_project

Create a new project with a required name. Optionally set identifier, description, public status, or parent project ID for sub-projects. Requires admin or 'add project' permission.

Instructions

Create a new project. Requires admin or "add project" permission. Pass either a parent identifier or numeric id via _links.parent.href if creating a sub-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": "op_create_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`identifier`	No	URL-safe slug; auto-generated from name when omitted
`description`	No
`public`	No
`parentId`	No	Numeric id of parent project

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds some behavioral context (permissions, sub-project creation, auto-generated identifier). However, it lacks details on return value, error scenarios, or idempotency, which are important for a creation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or extraneous information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no annotation, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description covers permissions and sub-project creation but is incomplete. Missing return value details and error handling reduce completeness for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 40%; the description adds context for parentId (mentioning identifier or numeric id via _links.parent.href) but does not elaborate on name, description, or public. It partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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 project, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like op_update_project and op_delete_project. It also specifies sub-project creation via parent identifier, adding clarity on variations.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description specifies required permissions (admin or 'add project') and explains when to use parent parameters for sub-projects. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives for similar actions.

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