Create a new view within a project to organize automation tasks. Specify the project ID and title, with optional position for ordering.
Create a new view.
Args: project_id: ID of the project title: View title position: View ordering position
Returns: Created view details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| position | No | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention any side effects, required permissions, or constraints (e.g., unique titles, dependencies on project existence).
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 concise with a clear structure (one sentence plus bullet list). However, it is overly sparse and could include more detail without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. Still, it lacks context about permissions, uniqueness, or project association. It is minimally adequate for a simple create tool but not complete.
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%, but the description merely lists parameter names without adding meaning. It does not explain allowed values, formats, or constraints beyond what the schema provides (e.g., position can be null).
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 'Create a new view' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate what a 'view' means in this context compared to sibling tools like create_project or create_template.
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 use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_view for modifications, list_views for viewing existing). The description only states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.