GCP MCP Server

gcp_create_project

Create a new GCP project with a unique ID and display name. Returns a long-running operation name to poll for completion.

Instructions

Create a new GCP project. Returns a long-running operation name. Use gcp_get_operation to poll for completion.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "displayName": "<displayName>"
    },
    "name": "gcp_create_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`labels`	No	Optional key-value labels to attach to the project.
`parentId`	No	Optional folder or organization ID to nest the project under (e.g. 'folders/123456').
`projectId`	Yes	Unique project ID (6-30 chars, lowercase letters, digits, hyphens).
`displayName`	Yes	Human-readable name for the project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds value by disclosing async behavior (long-running operation) and the need to poll. However, it lacks details on permissions, prerequisites, error states, or limits, which would be important for an agent.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states purpose and return, the second gives follow-up action. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the async nature and follow-up, but omits details on failure modes, duplicate detection, or status fields of the operation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and every parameter has a description. The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states 'Create a new GCP project', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gcp_list_projects and gcp_get_project by focusing on creation and mentioning the long-running operation return.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool (to create a project) and gives a clear next step (poll with gcp_get_operation). It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools makes the usage scope evident.

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