Set up a new Workstream project with a slug as its stable identifier for URLs and CLIs. Define display name, description, and agent context for shared task tracking.
Admin: create a new project. Slug is the stable identifier used in URLs and CLIs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Slug | No | ||
| as_agent | No | ||
| Description | No | ||
| DisplayName | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the privilege requirement ('Admin') and the identifier semantics of Slug (stable across URLs/CLIs), but says nothing about required fields, uniqueness/idempotency behavior, or side effects on 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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing details noted elsewhere.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage needs substantial description support. It covers permission level and Slug semantics but omits required-by-behavior fields, return behavior, and creation side effects.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains Slug; as_agent, Description, and DisplayName are undocumented in both schema and description. Three of four parameters are left opaque.
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?
States a specific verb (create) and resource (project), with an 'Admin:' prefix that signals the privilege context. It is clearly distinguishable from create_plan/create_task by resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives despite several related create_* and list/create-plan siblings. The 'Admin:' prefix only implies who may use it, not when the agent should choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.