USERDATA

start_project

Create a project with a name and goal so related sessions, lists, and notes can be grouped under it.

Instructions

Starts a project that sessions, lists and notes can belong to.

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_name": "<project_name>",
      "goal_text": "<goal_text>"
    },
    "name": "start_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`goal_text`	Yes
`project_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say what happens if a project with the same name already exists, whether the call is idempotent, whether it requires any permissions, or what side effects it has beyond creating the container.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing parameter and behavior detail rather than being a stylistic strength alone.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but this is a mutation tool with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation. For a creation operation that other tools depend on, the definition should cover duplicate handling, required inputs' meaning, and at least the basic success behavior.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and both parameters are required, yet the description never mentions project_name or goal_text. An agent gets no meaning for goal_text (free-form objective? length limits?) beyond the bare schema titles.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Starts a project') and adds relational context that sessions, lists and notes can belong to it, which tells an agent what a project is for. It stops short of distinguishing this from siblings like start_session or create_list beyond that membership hint.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The membership clause implies you create a project before attaching sessions, lists or notes, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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