Skip to main content
Glama
soil-dev

capsulemcp

by soil-dev

create_project

Create a Capsule CRM project linked to a party, with optional stage, owner, team, custom fields, and tracks. Returns the assigned project ID.

Instructions

Create a new project in Capsule CRM linked to a party. Requires partyId and name; description, status, owner, and starting board/stage are optional. To pin a project to a specific board+stage on creation, pass stageId (which uniquely identifies a stage within a board). Discover valid ids via list_boards + list_stages. Returns the created project including its assigned id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
fieldsNoSet custom field values on this record. PARTIAL UPDATE: only the definitions you list are touched; any field NOT in this array is left unchanged. Discover available definitions via list_custom_fields; read current values via get_project with embed='fields'. Verified empirically in v1.6.5 wire-trace: Capsule's project create endpoint accepts the same `fields[]` shape as PUT, so callers can set custom field values on creation without a follow-up update. Project-specific: setting a field whose definition lives under a 'data tag' populates the row's internal tagId but does NOT auto-add the data tag to the project's tags array — use add_tag explicitly if you want it visible via embed=tags.
statusNoDefaults to OPEN when omitted.
teamIdNoAssign to team ID (discover via list_teams). Capsule projects must always have at least one of {owner, team} set — Capsule returns 422 'owner or team is required' otherwise. Three ownership shapes are valid: owner alone, team alone, or owner+team (the user must be a member of the team — users can belong to multiple teams; 422 'owner is not a member of the team' otherwise). Tenant-specific board automations may set the team field on project creation (e.g. 'when project enters board X, set team to T'). If you observe a team set despite omitting `teamId`, check the target board's automation rules.
ownerIdNoAssign to user ID. Defaults to the API-token owner when omitted, same as create_party / create_opportunity / create_task. NOTE: some Capsule tenants configure board-level **automation rules** that mutate `owner` (and `team`) on project creation — e.g. an automation that clears `owner` when a project enters a particular board. If you observe a project landing with unexpected `owner: null` after a create_project with `ownerId`, check the target board's automation configuration. Capsule's API itself does not drop `ownerId` when `stageId` is also supplied.
partyIdNoID of the party linked to this project
stageIdNoStage (board column) to place the project on. Discover IDs via list_stages — each stage belongs to one Board, so picking a stageId implicitly picks the board. If omitted, the project is created with no stage assignment (and won't appear on any board). NOTE: tenant-specific board automation rules may run on project creation and mutate `owner` / `team` fields. See `create_project.ownerId` / `create_project.teamId` for the automation caveat. Capsule's create endpoint itself preserves the `ownerId` / `teamId` you supply — any clearing you observe traces to board automations, not the API.
startOnNoProject start date, YYYY-MM-DD. Verified empirically (v2.0.1 wire probe): Capsule's POST /kases accepts and stores it; reads back as `startOn` on the project.
descriptionNo
expectedCloseOnNoYYYY-MM-DD
trackDefinitionIdsNoTrack definition ids to apply at creation time (creation-only shortcut; use apply_track for existing records). Discover ids via list_track_definitions. Capsule validates each definition's entity scope and returns 422 on mismatch (e.g. "track definition must be for parties"). Wire-verified: the created record carries the track instances immediately.
Install Server

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only signal readOnly=false and destructive=false. The description adds behavioral context: stageId pins the project to a board+stage at creation, IDs come from list_boards/list_stages, and the call returns the created project including its assigned id. It does not mention defaults or automation caveats, but the create verb and annotation make the safety profile sufficiently clear.

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?

The description is five focused sentences: core action, required/optional fields, stage pinning, ID discovery, and return value. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition of schema detail.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 11-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description plus the rich schema jointly give the agent nearly everything needed to call it correctly, including a return-value summary. The main gap is the inaccurate required-fields statement, which could lead an agent to prepare the call incorrectly.

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 high (82%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful high-level summary and explains the stageId/board relationship, but it also states 'Requires partyId and name' while the schema only lists name as required. This contradiction undercuts some of the semantic value the description otherwise provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new project in Capsule CRM linked to a party.' This clearly distinguishes it from update_project, delete_project, and create_opportunity. The scope is unambiguous.

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 action is clear and there is no competing sibling tool for creating projects, so the intended use is obvious. The description also adds a useful preparation step: 'Discover valid ids via list_boards + list_stages.' It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but none are really needed here.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/soil-dev/capsulemcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server