Create a new project from an existing one by copying its requirements and user stories as open items, while excluding statuses and RICE scores. Use it as a template for a new client or product.
Create a new project from an existing one, copying its requirements and user stories as open items. Useful as a template for a new client or product. Statuses and RICE scores are not copied.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that requirements and user stories are copied as open items, and that statuses and RICE scores are not copied. It does not mention permissions, source-project impact, or return value, but the key copy/exclusion behavior is explicit.
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 two sentences, front-loads the core behavior, and uses the second sentence for useful context and exclusion details. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple two-parameter duplication tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, copy behavior, exclusions, and a representative use case. The main remaining gap is parameter-level detail, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it.
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 for parameter meaning. It implies that the existing project is the source (projectId) and the new project is the destination (name), but it never names the parameters or explains constraints such as the minimum name length. For two self-explanatory parameters this is minimally adequate, but not fully compensatory.
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: creating a new project from an existing one and copying requirements and user stories. It distinguishes itself from a blank create_project by emphasizing duplication from an existing project, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.
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?
It gives a clear usage context: as a template for a new client or product. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name create_project as the alternative for starting from scratch, but the intended scenario is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.