Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

OpenPanel: Create project

openpanel_create_project
Destructive

Create a new project through the Manage API using root-mode access by providing the site and project name, with an optional domain.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Create a new project via Manage API. Requires 'root' mode client.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "openpanel_create_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
siteYes
domainNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds the auth prerequisite ('root mode client') and the API surface used, which is genuine value beyond the annotations, but it never says what gets destroyed, whether duplicate names are rejected, or whether the creation is 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the prerequisite; no filler. The '[UNIFIED]' tag is unexplained jargon but costs little.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent create operation with zero parameter documentation, no output schema, and no statement of return value or failure modes. For a mutation tool with this little structured support, two sentences are not enough.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, and the description adds nothing. The distinction between the required 'site' and the optional 'domain' is completely unexplained, so an agent must guess at string formats.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new project via Manage API'. The 'Manage API' qualifier and the OpenPanel prefix help separate it from the coolify_/n8n_ create_project siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives one concrete prerequisite ('Requires root mode client'), which is real guidance for selecting it. It does not state when to prefer this over sibling create operations or what to do if a project with the same name exists.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools