Create a project on a Tugport panel with a required lowercase DNS-safe name and optional description to organize and deploy apps across your own servers.
Create a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Lowercase DNS-safe name | |
| description | No | Optional |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the name must be unique, what happens on a duplicate name, whether the caller needs account-level permissions, what side effects occur, or what the call returns (there is no output schema either). For a resource-creating mutation this is a serious 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?
Two words, front-loaded, zero waste — but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing. There is nothing to trim, yet nothing is earning its place because almost nothing is said.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a terse two-word description, an agent has no picture of what creating a project does in this environment or how it relates to the services/deploys that dominate the sibling list. The tool is structurally simple (one required string), which keeps this from being a 1, but the definition is not complete enough to call confidently.
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% — both parameters carry their own descriptions, including the 'Lowercase DNS-safe name' constraint — so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing beyond it, which is the baseline expectation when coverage is complete.
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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name: 'Create a project.' It does convey verb (create) and resource (project), but adds no scope, no distinction from siblings like create_service or list_projects, and no sense of what a 'project' means in this platform.
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 on when to create a project versus creating a service directly, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools (list_projects, get_project, create_service) that an agent would need to consider first. Usage is inferable only from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed