Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUptime

OpenUptime

by becoolme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_project

Create a project inside an existing workspace to separate monitors by team or service. Returns the new project record and ID, ready to use via the project argument.

Instructions

Create a project inside the selected workspace and return its record and id. Use this to separate monitors within an existing workspace; use create_workspace for a separate team. Requires access to all projects in that workspace. The new project is immediately usable through the project argument.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesDisplay name for the new workspace or project; not an existing resource id.
projectNoProject id (from list_workspaces). Omit to use the default project of the workspace.
workspaceNoWorkspace id (from list_workspaces). Omit to use the default one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"Display name for the new workspace or project; not an existing resource id."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the bar is lower; the description still adds the permission prerequisite, the fact that the new project is immediately usable via the project argument, and what is returned. It omits details like duplicate-name behavior or limits, keeping it just short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded: action and return first, then sibling routing, then the permission requirement. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, but the description discloses that the record and id are returned, and it covers the permission prerequisite and post-creation usability. Complete for a simple 3-parameter create tool, with only minor gaps around edge-case behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the name, project, and workspace parameters including their fallback behavior. The description's mention of 'the project argument' adds little beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a project inside the selected workspace') plus the return value (record and id), and explicitly distinguishes itself from create_workspace. An agent can identify this tool without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit use case ('separate monitors within an existing workspace') and names the alternative with its selecting condition ('use create_workspace for a separate team'). It also states the prerequisite of access to all projects in the workspace.

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