projects_createCreate a new project in a specified Omnara organization by supplying a human-readable project name and organization ID.
Create project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Human-readable name. Spaces and punctuation are allowed; leading or trailing whitespace and invisible or control characters are not. | |
| orgID | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top of that — no mention of validation rules, uniqueness constraints, 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?
Two words are technically concise but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency; there is no front-loaded information beyond the title the agent already sees.
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 mutation tool with two required parameters, an undocumented orgID reference, no output schema, and a large sibling namespace, the description leaves an agent without enough information to call it correctly or know what it produces.
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 only 50%: name is documented in the schema but orgID carries only a pattern regex with no prose explanation. The description does not compensate by explaining that orgID identifies the owning organization or that name must be unique.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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?
There is no guidance on when to create a project versus listing one, nor any prerequisites (org membership, quotas, permissions). The only sibling named in the family, projects_list, is never referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.