Skip to main content
Glama
nerdit-ai

Nerdit

Official
by nerdit-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_project

Reserve a project name for your token before the first deploy, grouping an app's services, models, databases and public addresses under one protected namespace.

Instructions

Create an empty project, reserving its name for your token.

    A project groups one app's services, the models and databases they
    reference, and their public addresses. The name is reserved for the
    token that created it: another token's deploy, ``serve_model`` or
    ``create_database`` of that name is refused with 409 ``project.owned``
    (an admin bypasses), and the project remains after ``remove_service``
    until ``delete_project`` releases it. You rarely need this before a
    deploy — every deployed app already becomes a project of its own name —
    but it lets you hold a name ahead of the first deploy. A name another
    token already reserved through ``set_secret`` is 409
    ``service.name_claimed``; a name in use is 409 ``project.exists``.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesNew project name: a lowercase DNS label of at most 40 characters (letters, digits, '-'), never containing '--'; reserved platform names are refused with 422.
idempotency_keyNoCaller-chosen key: a retry with the same key replays the first result instead of acting twice. Omit and a fresh key is minted per call, so each call acts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses ownership semantics, the admin bypass, persistence until delete_project, and the three distinct 409/422 failure modes with their error codes and meanings. This is exactly the failure-mode context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Purpose and effect are front-loaded, then lifecycle, then error codes, in a logical order with no filler. It runs long and packs multiple escape-coded conditions into one paragraph, which costs a bit of scannability, but every clause conveys distinct behavioral information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers ownership, lifecycle, and every documented failure path. The only gap is that it never indicates what is returned on success (e.g. a project record or just the reserved name), which the agent must discover empirically.

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%, so both parameters (name format rules, idempotency_key retry semantics) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds contextual meaning about what the name reservation implies, but no syntax or defaulting detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Create an empty project") plus the non-obvious effect of reserving the name for the calling token. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings: deploy/serve_model/create_database implicitly produce projects, create_project pre-claims a name, and delete_project releases it.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use it ("You rarely need this before a deploy — every deployed app already becomes a project of its own name") and when it is warranted ("it lets you hold a name ahead of the first deploy"). Competing paths (deploy, serve_model, create_database, set_secret) are named with the condition that selects each.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools