Create a new GitHub project by specifying title, owner, and visibility settings to organize tasks and sprints.
Create a new GitHub project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| shortDescription | No | ||
| owner | Yes | ||
| visibility | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new GitHub project' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate titles, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for its purpose.
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?
Given this is a mutation tool with 4 parameters (3 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameters, behavioral expectations, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning none have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about parameters, not even mentioning what they are or their purposes (title, shortDescription, owner, visibility). This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new GitHub project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_project' or 'delete_project' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_issue' or 'create_milestone' beyond the resource name.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, repository context), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar creation tools like 'create_issue' or 'create_milestone' in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.