Creates a new named project in FlowState's shared memory, letting multiple AI apps organize work and record changes by app, model, and machine.
Create a new project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Project name (unique) | |
| model | No | Your model name, if you know it (optional; never guessed) | |
| description | No | Project description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that - no note that the name must be unique, what happens on a duplicate, or whether creation is idempotent.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, so it is efficient. It is arguably too sparse for a mutation tool, but it contains no wasted text.
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 simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations declaring the safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits any note about the uniqueness constraint's failure behavior or what state the new project starts in, which a creation tool would ideally cover.
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 100%, so the schema already documents name, model, and description, including that name is unique. The description adds no parameter meaning, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (create) and resource (project), so an agent can distinguish it from list_projects and update_project by verb alone. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from the sibling create_component or any note about scope, keeping it just 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to create a project versus when to reuse or look one up via list_projects, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. 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.