Create a new Hex project with a required title and optional description, enabling AI assistants and MCP clients to set up workspaces for analysis and collaboration.
Create a new project with title and optional description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Create' implies a write, but the description says nothing about required permissions, whether the project is owned/shared by default, whether it is empty or templated, or any side effects. Only the bare mutation is implied.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, and the core action and required input are front-loaded. Nothing could be trimmed without losing content.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is thin. It omits auth requirements, default state of a created project, and what identifying information is returned, leaving the agent to guess at behavior around a state-changing call.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by naming both parameters and flagging 'description' as optional. However, it adds no format, length, or uniqueness constraints for 'title' and nothing about what a description is used for, so the schema's two fields remain largely unelaborated.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Create a new project') and names the two fields involved. It is clearly distinguishable from the create-* siblings (cell, collection, group, data connection) by resource, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with any of them. Clear and unambiguous, though not maximally differentiated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., hex-update-project for modifying, hex-export-project for copying), no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens after creation. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.