Create a new project in your nana800 account to serve as a container for automation schemes and workflows.
Create a new project in your account. Projects are containers for schemes (automation workflows).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | User ID who owns the project | |
| project_name | Yes | Name of the project | |
| project_slug | Yes | URL-friendly slug for the project (lowercase, no spaces) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost none of it: no statement about slug uniqueness or collision behavior, whether user_id must reference an existing user, what permissions are needed, or whether creation is idempotent. The only added context is the domain definition of a project.
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 tightly written sentences with the action front-loaded and a follow-on definition; nothing is wasted. It is efficient but borderline thin rather than padded, so not a 5.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should cover success behavior, validation constraints, and permission/ownership expectations. All three parameters are required yet nothing explains what happens on failure or what is returned.
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% and each of the three required parameters is documented inline, so the schema does the work. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline of 3.
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?
Specific verb+resource ("Create a new project") with a useful domain gloss that projects are containers for schemes (automation workflows), which tells an agent what a project means in this system. It does not explicitly contrast with project_update/project_get or the scheme_* family, so it lands just short of 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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent gets no signal about when a project should be created versus when an existing one should be fetched or updated, even though project_get/project_list_by_payment_account are obvious siblings in the list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.