create_projectCreate a new Redbooth project in a specific organization by supplying a project name, organization ID, and optional description.
Create a new Redbooth project in an organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Project name. | |
| description | No | Optional project description. | |
| organization_id | Yes | Organization to create the project in. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/open-world profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond them: no mention of required permissions, name uniqueness constraints, or side effects such as default task lists being created.
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. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to earn a top mark given the tool's creation semantics.
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 simple 3-parameter create call with a fully documented flat schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It nonetheless omits what an agent would benefit from knowing about a creation operation, such as permissions and whether the returned project ID is usable immediately.
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 all three parameters (name, description, organization_id) are already documented in the schema with required/optional status. The description only restates the organization scoping, adding no format or constraint detail; baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Create') plus the resource ('Redbooth project') and its scope ('in an organization'). The sibling list contains other create_* tools, but the resource noun makes the target unambiguous; still, the description doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings.
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 alternatives (e.g., when to nest under an existing project vs. create fresh), no prerequisites such as needing an organization_id from list_organizations first. The reader must infer everything from the schema's required fields.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.