Create a new project to organize epics and stories, with optional description and status. Use it to set up a structured workspace for project tracking.
Create a new project to organize epics and stories
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the project | |
| status | No | Current status of the project | active |
| description | No | Detailed description of the project |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the write operation. It does not mention permissions/auth, whether name must be unique, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur. The only extra context is that projects organize epics and stories, which is conceptual rather than behavioral.
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 short sentence with zero filler and the create action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple creation tool. Nothing is wasted or buried.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits when to use it, prerequisites, uniqueness or validation behavior, and what the response provides (e.g., the new project ID). The schema covers parameters, but the description should at least cover behavioral and usage context for created objects.
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 the schema already documents name, status (with enum), and description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, syntax, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description states a specific verb+resource ("Create a new project") and adds a rationale ("to organize epics and stories") that clarifies what the resource is for. It distinguishes itself from read/update/delete project siblings by the create verb, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like create_epic or create_story. Clear and actionable, but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not say whether a project must exist before creating epics/stories, nor how it relates to create_epic or create_story. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.