Create a new project with optional manager, description, start and due dates, and author details to set up work tracking.
Create a project, optionally with a manager, description and dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | Project description. | |
| title | Yes | Project title. | |
| due_date | No | Project due date. | |
| start_date | No | Project start date. | |
| author_email | No | Account email of the author. | |
| manager_email | No | Account email of the manager. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create' (implying a mutation) but does not disclose permission requirements, idempotency, duplicate handling, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation support, this is a notable gap.
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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then summarizes optional parameters efficiently. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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?
For a simple create tool with full schema coverage, the description provides adequate high-level context. However, it does not mention what the response contains (e.g., created project ID) or address potential edge cases. While no output schema exists, a bit more context about expected return value or side effects would improve completeness.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a slight grouping by mentioning 'manager, description and dates', which maps to some parameters, but it does not add any formatting or relationship details beyond the schema. It neither significantly enhances nor detracts from the schema's own explanations.
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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'project', and it lists optional fields (manager, description, dates) that distinguish it from sibling tools like create_task and create_subtask. The purpose is immediately clear and 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_project or archive_project. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues beyond the basic action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.