Creates a new automation workflow (scheme) within a project using a scheme name and project ID or the MCP_PROJECT_ID default.
Create a new scheme (automation workflow) within a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No | The project ID where the scheme will be created (uses MCP_PROJECT_ID env if not provided) | |
| scheme_name | Yes | Name of the scheme |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It implies a mutation ('Create') but does not describe permissions, idempotency, side effects, or what is returned, leaving significant gaps for a write operation.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted wording. It directly identifies the action and resource without unnecessary repetition.
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?
The tool is structurally simple: two parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose but, with no annotations, does not provide enough behavioral context about mutation side effects or return behavior for full completeness.
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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the phrase 'within a project', which loosely maps to project_id but does not add format or fallback details beyond the schema.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Create a new scheme (automation workflow) within a project.' The parenthetical clarifies what a scheme is, making it distinguishable from sibling tools like scheme_update or scheme_get, though it does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives such as scheme_import.
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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scheme_import or when not to use it. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create', leaving prerequisites and selection context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.