Skip to main content
Glama

Create project

create_project

Create a new project or subproject in OpenProject, pre-validating the form to catch invalid identifiers, parent, or status as named violations before commit. Returns the created project's id, identifier, and metadata.

Instructions

Create a project, validated through OpenProject's own form endpoint first.

Use it for a new workspace or, with parent_id, for a subproject of an existing one. The call runs POST /projects/form before committing, so a taken identifier, an unusable parent or a bad status comes back as violations naming the attribute instead of an opaque failure — and the identifier OpenProject derives from the name is used verbatim on the commit.

Returns the created project: {id, identifier, name, active, public, parent, status_code, description, status_explanation, created_at, updated_at}. Keep the id — every other tool's project_id accepts it, as does the identifier.

Pitfalls: creating projects usually requires the 'create project' permission or admin rights, so a 403 here is about the account, not the payload. The new project starts with the instance's default modules and types enabled — check get_project_metadata(project_id=...) before creating work packages in it. Members are not copied from the parent; add them with create_membership.

Cross-references: list_projects finds the parent id; update_project changes any of these fields afterwards; get_project_metadata lists the types, versions and categories valid inside the result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesDisplay name of the new project, e.g. 'Apollo migration'. Names need not be unique on the instance; the identifier is what must be.
publicNoTrue makes the project visible to every logged-in user without a membership. Omit to take the instance default (normally private).
parent_idNoNumeric id or identifier of the parent project, to create a subproject. Ids come from list_projects. Omit for a top-level project. Creating a subproject needs the 'add subprojects' permission on the parent.
identifierNoURL slug for /projects/<identifier>: lowercase letters, digits, '-' and '_' only, unique across the whole instance. Omit it and OpenProject derives one from the name — the derived value is in the result. A slug that is already taken comes back as a validation violation, not a surprise rename.
descriptionNoProject description in markdown. Omit to leave it empty.
status_codeNoInitial project status: on_track, at_risk, off_track, not_started, finished or discontinued. These codes are the only accepted values — a free-text status is rejected rather than silently dropped. Omit for no status.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoNumeric project id; accepted by every project_id parameter.
nameNoDisplay name.
activeNoFalse for archived projects (read-only in the UI).
parentNoParent project, when this is a subproject.
publicNoTrue when visible to users without a membership.
created_atNoISO 8601 UTC timestamp.
identifierNoURL slug from /projects/<identifier>; also accepted wherever an id is.
updated_atNoISO 8601 UTC timestamp.
descriptionNoDescription as markdown (raw); html is dropped.
status_codeNoProject status code, one of: on_track, at_risk, off_track, not_started, finished, discontinued. A code, never a translated label; null means no status has been set.
workspace_typeNoWorkspace kind: 'project', 'program' or 'portfolio'. Pre-17 instances only have 'project'; on 17.x project listings mix all three kinds, so check this before treating a row as a plain project.
status_explanationNoFree-text explanation of status_code, markdown (raw).
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals critical behavior: it runs POST /projects/form first, returns violations instead of opaque failures, uses the derived identifier verbatim, requires specific permissions (403 meaning), and notes that members are not copied. This significantly exceeds what annotations alone provide, with no contradictions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear paragraphs for usage, return value, pitfalls, and cross-references. Every sentence carries useful information such as permission caveats, derived identifier behavior, and sibling tool links. It is appropriately sized for a complex creation tool with no filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, output schema, cross-tool dependencies), the description is comprehensive. It covers the return format, notes to keep the id, explains permission pitfalls, warns about default modules/types, and directs to get_project_metadata for valid values. The output schema exists, so detailed return documentation isn't needed, but it still provides a useful summary.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining the form-endpoint validation for parameters, explicitly linking parent_id to subprojects, and noting that the identifier is derived from name. However, most parameter meaning already lives in the schema, so the added semantic layer is modest.

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?

The description opens with 'Create a project' and specifies the resource and action clearly, then differentiates from siblings by mentioning subprojects via parent_id and cross-referencing list_projects, update_project, and get_project_metadata. This makes the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use it for a new workspace or, with parent_id, for a subproject of an existing one.' It also names alternatives and related tools in the cross-references section, such as list_projects for finding parent IDs and update_project for later changes, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kar-thik/openproject-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server