Start a new project in the Rockfish AI platform by supplying a name and optional description, enabling organized synthetic data generation, dataset management, and ML workflow orchestration.
Create a new project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Project name | |
| description | No | Project description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 only repeats the action already implied by the name, with no information about idempotency, duplicate-name behavior, required permissions, or what happens after creation.
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 extremely short and front-loaded, making it easy to parse. The word 'new' is slightly redundant since 'create' already implies newness, but otherwise the phrasing is compact and unfussy.
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?
There is no output schema and no behavioral context. The description does not mention return values, failure modes, name constraints, or how this tool relates to list_projects and other siblings. For a creation tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves important operational details unspecified.
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?
The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, which earns the baseline score of 3.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Create a new project' tells the agent exactly what the tool does. However, it essentially restates the tool name and does not add scope or caveats that would differentiate it from sibling create_* tools beyond the resource type.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb 'create': the tool is for creating a project. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over listing or using existing projects, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.