Create a new TestMonitor project by supplying a name, symbol ID, and optional dates, description, and feature flags for risks, issues, messages, and requirements.
Create a project. Create a new project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention of required permissions, side effects, or non-idempotency. No contradiction, but no added value either.
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?
It is short, but the second sentence is a verbatim rephrase of the first and earns nothing. There is no front-loaded detail, no structure – just a duplicated fragment.
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 non-idempotent, destructive create operation with a nested 11-field request body, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot call this correctly without opening the schema.
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 0% and the nested body object carries 11 properties (name, symbol_id, dates, uses_* flags) documented only with generic strings like 'A resource string.' The description supplies no parameter meaning at all, leaving required fields like symbol_id unexplained.
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 says 'Create a project. Create a new project.' – a verb+resource that simply restates the tool name twice. It adds no scope, no distinguishing detail versus siblings like put_project, archive_project, or get_project.
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 versus put_project (update) or archive_project. No prerequisites, no context about which symbol/workspace the project belongs to. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.