arcane-cli-mcp

arcane_project_create

Destructive

Create a new compose project from a compose YAML with a generated .env of placeholders, keeping secrets out of the config. Preview the result, then confirm to write it.

Instructions

Create a NEW compose project from a compose file, with a generated .env of placeholders.

project: the new project's name. compose: the COMPLETE docker-compose YAML.
Reference every setting from compose as ${VAR}, ${VAR:-default} or ${VAR:?message}; never inline a secret. The server builds the project's .env from those references.
env_values ({VAR: "value"}) fills NON-SECRET settings you know: TZ, PUID/PGID, domains, host paths, ports, image tags. Never put passwords, tokens, API keys or other credentials there: keys whose name looks like a credential (PASSWORD, TOKEN, SECRET, API_KEY, ..._KEY, AUTH, SALT, ...) or values that look like one are refused, and such variables are always written as CHANGE_ME for the user to fill in. Other variables without a value get the compose default, else CHANGE_ME.
env_hints ({VAR: "one-line description"}) adds a comment above a variable telling the user what to enter (use it for every CHANGE_ME). Keys in env_values or env_hints that the compose doesn't reference (e.g. ones read through env_file) are added too.
Without confirm=true nothing is created: the result has needs_confirmation=true, the services and the .env that would be written. Show the user, and only after they approve call again with confirm=true.
The project is NOT deployed. The user replaces the CHANGE_ME values in the Arcane UI (Projects -> -> .env). Then arcane_project_compose {"project": ...} must show env_unfilled: [] before you run, with their OK, arcane_run ['projects', 'up', ].
Existing projects are refused: use arcane_project_compose to change them.

Examples:

{"project": "paperless", "env_id": "homelab", "compose": "services:\n app:\n image: ...\n environment:\n SECRET: ${PAPERLESS_SECRET}\n", "env_hints": {"PAPERLESS_SECRET": "Long random string (openssl rand -hex 32)"}} (returns a preview to approve)
the same arguments plus "confirm": true (after the user approved)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "compose": "<compose>"
    },
    "name": "arcane_project_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`env_id`	No
`compose`	Yes
`confirm`	No
`project`	Yes
`env_hints`	No
`env_values`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the substance an agent actually needs: nothing is written without confirm=true, the dry-run result carries needs_confirmation plus the services and .env that would be written, the project is not deployed, and the server rewrites credential-looking variables to CHANGE_ME and refuses them in env_values. It also notes unreferenced keys are still added, and describes the credential-name heuristic concretely.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then bulleted by concern, and the two worked examples map directly onto the preview/confirm flow. It is long, but nearly every line carries operational content; only minor restatement (the confirm rule appearing in both prose and example) could be trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-parameter destructive create tool, the description covers the pre-call protocol, the dry-run/confirm handshake, credential handling, and the full downstream workflow up to arcane_run. An output schema exists, yet the description still explains the key return field (needs_confirmation) because it drives the interaction rather than merely reporting data.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the parameters, and it does for five of six: project, compose (including the ${VAR}/${VAR:-default}/${VAR:?message} reference convention), env_values (non-secret only, with the refusal rule), env_hints (comment-per-variable, use for every CHANGE_ME), and confirm (preview vs. execute). env_id is only shown in an example with no explanation of what it selects, leaving one of six undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a NEW compose project from a compose file, with a generated .env of placeholders') and immediately scopes it against the sibling that handles the other case ('Existing projects are refused: use arcane_project_compose to change them'). An agent can distinguish this from arcane_project_compose and arcane_run without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use (new project from a compose file), an explicit when-not (existing projects, routed to arcane_project_compose), and a mandatory confirmation protocol: call once, show needs_confirmation preview, call again with confirm=true only after user approval. It also spells out the post-creation sequence (user fills CHANGE_ME in the UI, verify env_unfilled: [] via arcane_project_compose, then arcane_run ['projects','up',...]).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server