buildtree_create_projectCreate a buildtree project (one per app) and return the slug needed to upload its builds.
Create a buildtree project (one per app). Returns the slug to use in buildtree_upload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Human name, e.g. the app name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the cardinality constraint and that a slug is returned, but for a mutation tool it says nothing about authentication requirements, whether creation is idempotent, or side effects — gaps that matter given the presence of buildtree_login siblings.
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?
Two compact sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the return-value note is appended where it is most useful.
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?
With no output schema, the description sensibly notes the returned slug, and the single required parameter is fully covered by the schema. The only shortfall is omission of auth/precondition context, which is relevant for a creation tool.
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 100% for the single 'name' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds only the 'one per app' framing and does not enrich the parameter's meaning beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 and resource ('Create a buildtree project') and adds a scoping rule ('one per app') plus the downstream purpose of the return value ('slug to use in buildtree_upload'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like buildtree_list_projects, though it doesn't name a specific sibling it must not be confused with.
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?
The parenthetical 'one per app' implies when the tool should be used, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as buildtree_list_projects or buildtree_detect_project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.