Create a Semaphore UI project by supplying the required project name and optional settings such as demo resources, alerts, and parallel task limits.
Create a new project. POST /projects. Supply API fields in body; JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive, open-world operation. The description adds the HTTP endpoint and a body-format constraint about JSON-encoded string fields, but does not explain permissions, side effects, or what project resources are created. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 short and front-loaded with the action and endpoint. The sentence about body fields and JSON-encoded strings is useful, though slightly cryptic. There is little wasted text.
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 definition covers the basic call shape and the annotations already describe the mutation safety profile. However, for a project-creation tool with a nested request body and no output schema, the description omits field semantics, side effects, and usage boundaries. It is minimally adequate but not rich.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only says to supply API fields in the body and that JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings. It does not explain the required name field, the demo/alert/type fields, or their meaning. The body-format note adds some value, but most parameter semantics are left undocumented.
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 verb and resource: "Create a new project." It also names the endpoint POST /projects, which makes the operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like update_project or delete_project, but the create semantics are unambiguous.
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 implies use when a new project is needed, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say when to prefer create_project over update_project, list_projects, or other project-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.