Adds a titled, color-coded section to an existing Gorelo project, letting you organize project work into labeled groups and record the author of the change.
Adds a section to a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Request body for adding a section to a project. | |
| projectId | Yes | Project to add the section to. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that—no mention of default color behavior, whether the section is appended or ordered, or what happens on duplicate titles. With annotations present the bar is lower, but this text contributes no behavioral context.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, leaving no room for the routing or behavioral context an agent would benefit from.
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?
The schema fully documents both parameters including the nested body, and annotations cover the mutation/safety profile, so the core invocation is inferable. Still, for a create tool in a dense sibling set, the description should do more to distinguish it and mention prerequisites.
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%, with nested body fields (Title, Color with default #56A0F9, CreatedByName) fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning, so baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Adds') and resource ('a section to a project'), which clearly separates it from siblings like gorelo_update_project_section and gorelo_list_project_sections. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus gorelo_update_project_section or gorelo_create_project, no prerequisites (such as needing an existing projectId), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.