Create a new TestRail project by providing a name and optionally set suite mode, announcement text, and whether to show it on the overview page.
Create a new project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Project name | |
| suite_mode | No | Suite mode (1=single, 2=single+baselines, 3=multiple) | |
| announcement | No | Project description/announcement | |
| show_announcement | No | Show announcement on overview page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only indicates that this is a mutating operation, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, return values, uniqueness constraints, or what happens on success or failure.
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?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: 'Create a new project' contains no filler and every word adds meaning. It is appropriately sized for a simple create operation.
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 creation tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and any indication of what the tool returns, so an agent must rely on inference for several operational aspects.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters, including the required 'name' and optional 'suite_mode', 'announcement', and 'show_announcement'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource ('a new project'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like update_project, delete_project, and get_project. The purpose is unambiguous even without additional context.
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 use case is only implied by the verb 'Create' — an agent can infer it is for creating a new project, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like update_project. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.