gh-board-mcp

create_project

Create a new GitHub Project v2 board with default Status (Todo, In Progress, Done) and Priority (Urgent, High, Medium, Low) fields.

Instructions

Create a new GitHub Project v2 board with default Status (Todo/In Progress/Done) and Priority (Urgent/High/Medium/Low) fields.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Name of the new board/project

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it mentions the default fields, it omits whether the operation is destructive (overwriting existing projects?), requires authentication, or has side effects (e.g., creating a repository or webhook). A mutation tool should disclose 'creates a new board beyond existing ones' and usage limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word serves the purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with 1 parameter, the description is mostly adequate. However, without an output schema or annotations, it would benefit from stating what the response looks like (e.g., 'Returns the created board's ID and URL') and any prerequisites (e.g., 'Requires admin access to the repository or organization').

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about default fields ('Status' and 'Priority'), but the sole parameter 'name' is already explained in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create'), the target ('GitHub Project v2 board'), and what default fields come with it ('Status' and 'Priority'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_projects' (list) or 'create_activity' (creates a different resource).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for creating boards with a specific structure, which differentiates it from siblings like 'list_projects' (read) or other activity-level tools. However, it does not explicitly say when to use an alternative or when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server