Skip to main content
Glama

project_create

Create a project with explicit CRS, vertical datum, and metric units to ensure subsurface geological models use confirmed coordinates.

Instructions

Create a project with explicit CRS, vertical datum and metric units.

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": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "project_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYesTool arguments object (all fields documented; Z is positive upward).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent local write. The description adds almost no behavioural context beyond that: nothing about duplicate-name handling, what gets created/returned, or what happens if the CRS conflicts with existing data. For a creation tool this is thin.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the distinguishing detail. No padding, though it stops abruptly without covering outcomes.

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?

A mutation tool with a nested argument object, full schema documentation, annotations and no output schema. The description is adequate to identify the action, but leaves the agent without any picture of the result (e.g. whether a project id is returned) or failure modes, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 100% and the nested ProjectCreate object documents every field, including the "never inferred" rule on crs and the fixed 'm' length unit. The description only restates those field names, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

A specific verb ("Create") plus resource ("project") and the three defining fields (CRS, vertical datum, metric units). That is enough to distinguish it from project_list, project_inspect and start, which are read/navigation verbs, though the description never explicitly names those siblings.

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?

The word "explicit" hints that CRS and vertical datum must be supplied deliberately rather than inferred, which is a mild usage constraint. But there is no statement of when to call this versus project_list/project_inspect/start, no prerequisites and no guidance on prerequisites such as an existing source.

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