create_orgCreate a shared organisation and become its owner. Returns the org ID and slug for use in other Railyard operations.
Create a new shared organisation; the token's user becomes its owner. Returns the org's id and slug, which other tools accept as org. Note that adding members to it needs a Team or Enterprise plan (see get_billing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the new organisation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations establish this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but the description adds behavioral depth: the token's user becomes owner, the response includes id and slug that other tools accept as `org`, and member addition is gated by plan. This goes well beyond what annotations and schema provide, informing the agent of side effects, output semantics, and a business-logic constraint.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: core action and ownership side-effect, return value usage, and plan limitation. Information is front-loaded and there is zero repeated content from the schema or annotations. Highly efficient.
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?
With only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything needed to call the tool correctly: what it does, who gets ownership, what is returned, how the return value is used by other tools, and a plan restriction. An agent has sufficient context without additional lookup.
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% and the `name` parameter is already documented as 'Name for the new organisation.' The tool description adds no additional detail about parameter formatting or constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies. There is no gap requiring compensation.
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 and resource: 'Create a new shared organisation'. It adds unique scope details (owner becomes the token's user) and is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_orgs, rename_org, and delete_org. An agent can immediately identify this as the creation operation.
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?
Clear context that this tool is for creating a new shared organisation, with no ambiguity about when to invoke it. It also flags a relevant prerequisite by pointing to get_billing for the Team/Enterprise plan requirement, though it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools. This is slightly below 5 because it doesn't state when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.