Create a Linear project by providing a name and at least one team UUID from teams_list.
Create a project. name and at least one team UUID are required; team UUIDs come from teams_list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variables | Yes | The project to create. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating, externally visible operation. The description adds required-input and dependency information, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the creation returns.
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?
The description is two tight sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the required-field note follows immediately.
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 project-creation tool with full schema descriptions and annotations covering mutability, the description gives enough to call the tool correctly: the required fields and where to obtain team UUIDs. It is slightly thin on optional-field behavior and return expectations, though the schema covers those details.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema by naming `teams_list` as the source for team UUIDs and reiterating which fields are required.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a project.' This clearly identifies the operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as linear_project_update_create or linear_projects_list.
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?
It provides clear prerequisite context: `name` and at least one team UUID are required, and it names `teams_list` as the source for team UUIDs. It does not, however, state when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.