hive

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

project_add

Idempotent

Register a directory as a project, defaulting to the current working directory, and return the existing project if the path is already registered.

Instructions

Register a directory as a project. Defaults to the current working directory. Returns the existing project if the path is already registered.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "project_add"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`path`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`path`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`hive_notice`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.2Sep 26, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / hive_notice
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedv1.0.0Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with the concrete behavior 'returns the existing project if the path is already registered,' which is useful added context. It omits permissions/auth requirements, keeping it from 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, each earning its place: what it does, the path default, and duplicate behavior. Front-loaded and waste-free.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The one gap is the undocumented 'name' parameter, but otherwise the description is complete for a simple registration tool.

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 description coverage is 0% for 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'path' parameter's default (cwd) but says nothing about 'name', leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Register a directory as a project') and adds scope details (default path, duplicate handling). It does not differentiate from siblings like project_list or project_select, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The default-to-cwd behavior and the 'returns existing project if already registered' note imply usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance and no mention of project_select or project_list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.