Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-nexus

agent-nexus

by dugubuyan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

register_project

Register a new sub-project in a project space by specifying name, type, and stage. Supports types like development, testing, ops, and stages from design to deployment.

Instructions

Register a new sub-project in the given project space.

type: development | testing | ops | infra | shared | ... stage: design | development | testing | deployment | upgrade

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "project_space_id": "<project_space_id>"
    },
    "name": "register_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
typeYes
project_space_idYes
stageNodesign

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not mention permissions, side effects, error handling, or response behavior. Only the creation action and parameter examples are noted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short (two sentences plus a list) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be structured more clearly, but it is concise without unnecessary fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks return value information, usage context, error conditions, and completeness on parameter meaning, leaving gaps for the agent.

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?

The description adds value for 'type' and 'stage' by listing example values, which the schema does not provide. However, 'name' and 'project_space_id' are left unexplained, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates.

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?

The description clearly states the tool registers a new sub-project in a given project space, with a specific verb and resource. It lists possible values for type and stage, adding clarity, but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like create_space.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, preconditions, or scenarios where it should not be used. The description only gives example parameter values.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools