Create a new project in your Deployado account with a name, description, default branch, and Git repository URL so your app has a deployment target.
Create a new project in your Deployado account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Project name | |
| description | No | Project description | |
| default_branch | No | Default branch (e.g. 'main') | |
| repository_url | No | Git repository URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of whether optional fields like repository_url change behavior, whether name must be unique, or what happens on success.
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, which is efficient. The brevity costs content rather than being padded, so it scores well on structure but not perfectly.
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 non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description does not say what a created project returns, whether the name must be unique, or how optional Git fields affect the result. Given the complexity of the surrounding tool family, it should do more than restate the name.
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 all four parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional meaning about parameter interactions (e.g., that repository_url and default_branch are optional and relate to Git linking).
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 project'), which clearly separates it from get/list/update/delete_project siblings. However, it does not explicitly name the siblings or scope it shares with them, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus deployado_create_app, deployado_install_service, or the other create_* tools, and no prerequisites or exclusion cases are given. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.