Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
project-manager

project-manager

by samrullo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

pm_create_project

Create a new project with name, description, owner, and optional settings like slug, color, and sort order.

Instructions

POST /projects — body matches ProjectCreate (name, description_md, owner, optional slug, color_key, sort_order, settings_json, owner_user_id).

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": {
      "payload": "<payload>"
    },
    "name": "pm_create_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payloadYes
x_user_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only lists fields. It does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, authorization needs, side effects, or what the response contains.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One sentence, direct and front-loaded with the endpoint. It is concise, though uses technical jargon that may not be universally understood.

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?

Given an output schema exists and the tool is simple, the description covers core parameters but lacks usage context and behavioral details, leaving gaps for an agent to confidently invoke.

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?

The description lists expected fields within the payload (name, description_md, owner, etc.), adding value beyond the generic schema. However, it does not specify which are required or provide types, and the schema coverage is 0%.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses 'POST /projects' and references 'ProjectCreate', which implies creating a project. Combined with the tool name, the purpose is clear. However, it does not explicitly state 'creates a new project', relying on technical notation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with sibling tools like pm_update_project or other create tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools