Create or update a Langflow project by caller-supplied UUID via PUT upsert semantics to sync names, descriptions, flows, and components.
Create or update a project at a caller-supplied ID using Langflow 1.12.x PUT upsert semantics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Project name | |
| flows_list | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | Project UUID | |
| description | No | Project description | |
| auth_settings | No | Project authentication settings | |
| components_list | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.12.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the important create-or-update duality and that the ID is caller-controlled — genuinely useful behavior. It does not say whether an update replaces or merges omitted fields (a real risk given nullable flows_list/components_list), nor whether permissions are required or what is returned.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the essential semantics (ID, upsert) come first and nothing is wasted.
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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the core identity but omits update semantics (partial vs full replacement of lists/settings) and any error or permission context. Adequate as a minimum, but not complete enough to call safely.
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 coverage is only 67%, and flows_list and components_list have no description anywhere. The description adds nothing beyond schema for any of the six parameters and does not clarify whether passing null for a list clears existing values — the most consequential ambiguity for an upsert.
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?
States a specific verb pairing ("Create or update") plus the resource ("a project") and the mechanism ("at a caller-supplied ID using Langflow 1.12.x PUT upsert semantics"). This meaningfully separates it from sibling tools create_project, update_project, and get_project, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 phrase "caller-supplied ID" and "PUT upsert semantics" imply the tool is for callers who already know the target ID, which weakly distinguishes it from create_project (server-generated ID). However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or a named alternative, so the agent must infer the routing decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.